SUVs are 40% of total U.S. new vehicle market

[LennStar]

Around here most parking is defined with painted lines.

That is the part I meant with it is very hard to park in and out on the parking lots of supermarkets etc. Because the lines are painted for normal cars, not those crossovers between car and tank ;)
So you have two of them parking with one space in between, but those SUVs no only often are a few cm longer then the lines but also so wide that they barely fit in the lines - while it is supposed that they fit and leave space for you to walk (or navigate your car).

A third SUV could not get into that hole, that is why you find that quite often even with a (so far) under 10% amount of SUVs. I can still go in that with my compact, but it is not fun.

Aside from the Subaru Outback and Volkswagen Golf, there are no non-premium wagons left on the North American market. And one of these is AWD and the other is quite small.

And why is there no car left? Because everyone buys the SUVs.
btw even the Golf gets bigger with every generation. And if you think it is small - I drive an i10 and it works well.
I dont say that you can't buy a bigger one as a family with children, but for 1/2 persons you don't need a bigger car in 90% of cases. Yes, you cannot put your new fridge in it (in fact you could, but it would be extremely unsafe), but I prefer paying 40€ for someone to bring it once a decade then paying 40€ more monthly for a bigger car.

[WhiteTrashCash]

I live in the suburbs and as far as I can tell SUVs are how some people try to tell themselves that they are exciting rugged outdoor adventurers, so they can try to deny the awful truth that they are actually overweight, overworked, and very unhappy cubicle slaves.

[penguintroopers]

I am frankly surprised that it is only 40%. Who the heck still buys a sedan? For one or two people it is overkill, and for four people the trunk is too small.

Tried to convince hubby to get a new-to-us smart car for me, because 95% of the vehicle's use would be to shuttle me back and forth from work to school to home. The other 5% would likely be taking myself and him to other places.

He didn't bite. Something about rear wheel drive and ice up here in the north. We ended up with a little hatchback.

[paddedhat]

I am frankly surprised that it is only 40%. Who the heck still buys a sedan? For one or two people it is overkill, and for four people the trunk is too small.

Tried to convince hubby to get a new-to-us smart car for me, because 95% of the vehicle's use would be to shuttle me back and forth from work to school to home. The other 5% would likely be taking myself and him to other places.

He didn't bite. Something about rear wheel drive and ice up here in the north. We ended up with a little hatchback.

Looks like a good decision. It's tough to find anybody in the automotive press who has anything good to say about a Smart Car. They are notorious for their rough and unique autoshift manual transmissions. Pretty much a poor choice for anything but urban use. OTOH, a Toyota Yaris, or Honda Fit is a slightly bigger car, with a lot more versatility, nearly matching fuel economy, and stellar reliability. I guess the buying public has made that pretty clear, since the Smart Car first came to the states. I see multiple Fits and Yari every day, but only get a glimpse at a Smart car every few weeks.  The other indicators that they are best avoided is that they are extremely cheap as used cars, and are one of the worst cars when it comes to initial depreciation, with a 37% loss in the first year. Bottom line, cars are cheap when used, and drop in value like a rock off a cliff for one reason, nobody wants them.

[GuitarStv]

I frankly think that too much is being read into this statistic. It is a logical leap to conclude that Americans are prefer gas-guzzling SUVs. Consider the following:

1) As a result of CAFE, there is a strong incentive to build "light trucks" as opposed to cars. That means that everything that would have been a wagon 20 years ago is now redesigned as a crossover and falls into the "SUV" category. Aside from the Subaru Outback and Volkswagen Golf, there are no non-premium wagons left on the North American market. And one of these is AWD and the other is quite small.

2) As a natural consequence of point (1), families now have no choice but to buy crossovers. A sedan is simply not a suitable vehicle for someone with kids that has to haul stuff. When the two choices are a crossover or a full-size minivan, most families will choose the crossover because it is smaller.

We recently had to replace our 13-year old VW Passat wagon and bought an Outback because it was the most wagon-y vehicle family vehicle left on the market. So now we are "evil" SUV owners. But the alternative would have been a Toyota minivan which (a) costs $7,000 more and (b) is too big for our parking spot. We would have bought a Camry wagon in a heartbeat if such a beast existed. But if the entire market of cars with a decent-sized trunk now consists of SUVs, it is easy to fall into the 40% statistic.

I am frankly surprised that it is only 40%. Who the heck still buys a sedan? For one or two people it is overkill, and for four people the trunk is too small.

Our Toyota Corolla is more than spacious enough for two adults, a kid, and a dog.  We take trips in it all the time.  As a child, a (smaller than Corolla) Ford a Tempo was fine for two parents, two kids, and a dog . . . And we regularly took 12-14 hour car trips in it (since we lived out in the sticks).

I've had no issue fitting 12 2x4s in our Corolla either.  :P

[scottish]

How, may I ask, do you fit 8' 2x4's in a corolla?   Cut them in half?

[GuitarStv]

How, may I ask, do you fit 8' 2x4's in a corolla?   Cut them in half?

Nah..  The rear seat folds down and you can stack them from the trunk up to the center console pretty easily.

[SeaEhm]

You guys and your clown compact cars are killing the earth!

[ketchup]

You guys and your clown compact cars are killing the earth!

reminds me of what my sister saw in Chile.

[Vibrissae]

Most of my ire is directed at the land yachts that are considered necessities by pretty much everyone at this point. The family with two kids that "must" have a minivan. The person with no kids and an 8-passenger SUV. The dude with the enormous truck who hauls things like twice a year.

The Denali owner who no parking space in the US was built for.

OMG, the Denali. There's one that parks at my (suburban New Jersey) ShopRite. It's like the mountain that it was named after.

Trying to back out from next to any SUV/truck in my Corolla is decidedly not fun--you can't see anything, people zoom through the lot like crazy, and they don't even think about braking unless you're halfway out of the spot already.


On the subject of Smart cars, I once saw one that had a wind-up key stuck on the back that turned as it drove. Hilarious!

[alsoknownasDean]

I drove a Ford Kuga as a loan car briefly earlier this year. Didn't like it.

What's with the huge blunt front end? It doesn't make it easy to park, I found myself reversing into the car park because it was just easier to do so. Anything within two or three metres of the front of the car was basically invisible.

And yeah, the article may include the smaller crossover SUVs that have largely replaced station wagons, rather than just the 'super size me' vehicles.

Had to look that one up. the latest generation of the "Kuga" is the same vehicle as the "Escape" in the North American market. Not really sure where you are seeing the "huge blunt front end" ? It's a typical compact SUV, just like the other dozen+ in any big market. Lift the hood and there is a tight engine bay, sit up front and there is an adequate amount of legroom, nothing which would make it an oddly oversized, or bulbous outlier in it's class. It's important to understand that a lot of the structure from the windshield forward is needed to pass tough US crash standards. Room for crumple zones, and similar requirements. A few minutes on youtube, watching crash testing of death traps, like the little Mexican Nissan that was built for decades longer than it should of been, really sharpened my priorities. Personally, walking away from a front offset crash at 35 MPH is a hell of a lot more important that satisfying personal tastes, or appeasing the most rigid adherents here, who feel that anything beyond a 25 year old, $500 Civic is ostentatious, and irresponsible.

Well it was the previous generation (I don't know if it was sold in North America), but I found the very high front end impeded my vision, and I felt I couldn't see anything on the ground for three metres in front of the car, which made parking the thing guesswork. For something so high up the visibility wasn't great (nor was it out of the tiny rear window).

Safety is definitely important, but the Prius V proves that car makers can make cars with a lower more sharply angled front end without compromising on safety.

Although I find that most newer cars fare pretty poorly with visibility, some of them have such tiny and high rear windows nowadays, for one. It's not just SUVs.

[sol]

Although I find that most newer cars fare pretty poorly with visibility, some of them have such tiny and high rear windows nowadays, for one. It's not just SUVs.

It's not just the rear windows.  All of the windows in modern cars are higher up than they used to be.  In order to improve crash test ratings, automakers have been shrinking the glass and adding buttressing to the doors and body.  They've moved the seats away from the edges of the vehicle, for the same reason.

If you ever get the chance to drive a mid-90s SUV, like one of the old Rav4s, it's almost startling how exposed you feel.  The driver's window extends down to your naval and you can see straight down the outside of the car to the pavement where you feet go when you stand up.  They raised the roof and the seating position from a car design to call it an an SUV and give it a slightly more commanding road perspective, but it really diminishes the feeling of safety you get from a being ensconced inside a more modern car's steel cage.

Modern cars have come an amazing distance since then.  Backup cameras are a hugely important safety feature that is basically standard in Europe on even base model cars, but still restricted to the upper trim levels in American cars.  Electronic stability control probably saves more lives than air bags.  Last week I rode in a new BMW X5 that has proximity sensors in all of the bumpers, and gives you a little color-coded distance/heat map around an overhead picture of your car so you can see how close you are to everything, which is pretty handy for parking garages.

[penguintroopers]

I am frankly surprised that it is only 40%. Who the heck still buys a sedan? For one or two people it is overkill, and for four people the trunk is too small.

Tried to convince hubby to get a new-to-us smart car for me, because 95% of the vehicle's use would be to shuttle me back and forth from work to school to home. The other 5% would likely be taking myself and him to other places.

He didn't bite. Something about rear wheel drive and ice up here in the north. We ended up with a little hatchback.

... Bottom line, cars are cheap when used, and drop in value like a rock off a cliff for one reason, nobody wants them.

I'd agree, but to an extent. There were quite a few Nissan Versas and Chevy Aveos in our desired mileage and budget. Thing is that they start with such a comparatively low initial amount (base is around $15k brand new for both of them) that it took pretty much no time/miles for them to depreciate into our budget range. We didn't care at all about features, colors, anything. We just wanted a little budget car with low miles and at least 25+ mpg, ideally 30+. A honda fit would have been amazing, but they were more than what we were are willing to spend right now. Maybe two years or so when we're out of debt we'll reevaluate the older car and get something different.

[NeonPegasus]

2) As a natural consequence of point (1), families now have no choice but to buy crossovers. A sedan is simply not a suitable vehicle for someone with kids that has to haul stuff. When the two choices are a crossover or a full-size minivan, most families will choose the crossover because it is smaller.

I think this is a good point. Pray tell, what great options do I have for 3 young kids, all of whom are in some type of car seat? I did three across in a LEAF for 2 years. Never a-fucking-gain. Considering the range was 70ish miles max, you can guess that they weren't in the car very long. And yet that time was so, so very long. Imagine how fun it is with a rear facing 1 year old kicking the shit out of her sister's face who is squished in beside her.

So yeah, I drive a Highlander. When I made the purchase, a comparable quality minivan was way more $$$. Same thing with station wagons. Right now, I have a third row and it is worth gold. The kids can't touch each other. With the 3rd row up, it doesn't even have much space to carry stuff (newer versions have a split 3rd row, which I very much covet) so we have to strap it on top. Yes, a minivan would carry more stuff but I simply hate how they handle. It's like riding a whale.

The only commute I have (driving the kids to and from school) has the car well occupied. And I often take kids there or back with them so I've maxed out that baby lots of times.

So nope, not sorry. I'll continue to try to drive less but I have a lot of people to move and I'm doing the best I can.

[Travis]

2) As a natural consequence of point (1), families now have no choice but to buy crossovers. A sedan is simply not a suitable vehicle for someone with kids that has to haul stuff. When the two choices are a crossover or a full-size minivan, most families will choose the crossover because it is smaller.

I think this is a good point. Pray tell, what great options do I have for 3 young kids, all of whom are in some type of car seat? I did three across in a LEAF for 2 years. Never a-fucking-gain. Considering the range was 70ish miles max, you can guess that they weren't in the car very long. And yet that time was so, so very long. Imagine how fun it is with a rear facing 1 year old kicking the shit out of her sister's face who is squished in beside her.

So yeah, I drive a Highlander. When I made the purchase, a comparable quality minivan was way more $$$. Same thing with station wagons. Right now, I have a third row and it is worth gold. The kids can't touch each other. With the 3rd row up, it doesn't even have much space to carry stuff (newer versions have a split 3rd row, which I very much covet) so we have to strap it on top. Yes, a minivan would carry more stuff but I simply hate how they handle. It's like riding a whale.

The only commute I have (driving the kids to and from school) has the car well occupied. And I often take kids there or back with them so I've maxed out that baby lots of times.

So nope, not sorry. I'll continue to try to drive less but I have a lot of people to move and I'm doing the best I can.

So what you're saying is you have a vehicle which has features you make use of?  The problem with the US vehicle market is that too many of the people buying these vehicles don't need them.  My best friend, love her to death, bought some flavor of Chevy SUV because she just liked the idea of having a big vehicle.  It serves absolutely no purpose that her old Honda wasn't doing at half the size and double the mpg.

[NeonPegasus]

So what you're saying is you have a vehicle which has features you make use of?  The problem with the US vehicle market is that too many of the people buying these vehicles don't need them.  My best friend, love her to death, bought some flavor of Chevy SUV because she just liked the idea of having a big vehicle.  It serves absolutely no purpose that her old Honda wasn't doing at half the size and double the mpg.

That is a correct assessment. Thanks. We wound up with a BMW 3 series at a car rental last summer and it was a painful reminder that just because we can fit everyone in it doesn't mean we should.

[mm1970]

I am frankly surprised that it is only 40%. Who the heck still buys a sedan? For one or two people it is overkill, and for four people the trunk is too small

What the heck are you trying to put in your trunk?

We are a family of 4 with a Civic and a Matrix.  The trunks are fine?  And there are actually bigger sedans out there with even bigger trunks.

The only thing it's not big enough for is camping, and we've got a box for the top of the car for that.

[mm1970]

2) As a natural consequence of point (1), families now have no choice but to buy crossovers. A sedan is simply not a suitable vehicle for someone with kids that has to haul stuff. When the two choices are a crossover or a full-size minivan, most families will choose the crossover because it is smaller.

I think this is a good point. Pray tell, what great options do I have for 3 young kids, all of whom are in some type of car seat? I did three across in a LEAF for 2 years. Never a-fucking-gain. Considering the range was 70ish miles max, you can guess that they weren't in the car very long. And yet that time was so, so very long. Imagine how fun it is with a rear facing 1 year old kicking the shit out of her sister's face who is squished in beside her.

So yeah, I drive a Highlander. When I made the purchase, a comparable quality minivan was way more $$$. Same thing with station wagons. Right now, I have a third row and it is worth gold. The kids can't touch each other. With the 3rd row up, it doesn't even have much space to carry stuff (newer versions have a split 3rd row, which I very much covet) so we have to strap it on top. Yes, a minivan would carry more stuff but I simply hate how they handle. It's like riding a whale.

The only commute I have (driving the kids to and from school) has the car well occupied. And I often take kids there or back with them so I've maxed out that baby lots of times.

So nope, not sorry. I'll continue to try to drive less but I have a lot of people to move and I'm doing the best I can.

ha ha ha I only have two kids, but I turned my rear facer around at two because he kept kicking his brother in the face.

I'm going to say that families don't need minivans or crossovers, if you only have two kids.  I only have two, and I want a minivan SO BAD.  But I don't need it.

But if you've got 3 kids in carseats (and these days, kids are in carseats until age 9), then it's reaaaally hard to do it without a third row of something.

[afulldeck]

I am frankly surprised that it is only 40%. Who the heck still buys a sedan? For one or two people it is overkill, and for four people the trunk is too small.

Ah you haven't looked at the Chrysler 300-I can put all four people in the trunk with room to spare and I'm left with a quiet drive :-)

[Kashmani]

I am frankly surprised that it is only 40%. Who the heck still buys a sedan? For one or two people it is overkill, and for four people the trunk is too small

What the heck are you trying to put in your trunk?

We are a family of 4 with a Civic and a Matrix.  The trunks are fine?  And there are actually bigger sedans out there with even bigger trunks.

The only thing it's not big enough for is camping, and we've got a box for the top of the car for that.

A few examples:

1) Four plastic bins with clothing, towels, tools and food go head to a lake cabin. Plus a cat in a carrier. Plus two 20-litre containers to pick up water at the communal artesian well.

2) A ratty old ottoman that needed to go to the dump.

3) A folding ladder.

4) A folding stroller.

5) Several children's bicycles.

6) A disassembled bunk bed bought on Kijiji.

Hatchbacks are fantastic cars if you either haul four people or two people plus stuff. They are a horrible vehicle when you are hauling four people plus stuff. Kudos to you for making it work.

[dougules]

The costs should be levied on the citizens who actually use those services.

Do you ever buy anything in a store? Then you are using those roads. The materials for your house were transported on those roads. Heck even the people who build the drones that will in teh future deliver your Amazon packets use the roads to get to their workplace.

Yes, exactly.   Barges and trains are more efficient at moving goods to you, but their competition (long-haul trucks) is getting a subsidy.

[scantee]

Hatchbacks are fantastic cars if you either haul four people or two people plus stuff. They are a horrible vehicle when you are hauling four people plus stuff. Kudos to you for making it work.

Did you mean sedans instead of hatchbacks? If so, I agree with you. I currently own a small sedan (Jetta) and while it has many great features (great handling, smooth ride, excellent gas mileage) it sucks if I need to go anywhere with my 6'5" partner and two school-age kids. Throw in a 70-pound dog and any sort of luggage and, yeah, no. The Golf (basically a hatchback Jetta) I owned many years ago was far superior in moving people and things.

I can't imagine buying a sedan ever again. I purchased this one because it was a fantastic price, but I now realize that it wasn't worth it.

[Travis]

Hatchbacks are fantastic cars if you either haul four people or two people plus stuff. They are a horrible vehicle when you are hauling four people plus stuff. Kudos to you for making it work.

Did you mean sedans instead of hatchbacks? If so, I agree with you. I currently own a small sedan (Jetta) and while it has many great features (great handling, smooth ride, excellent gas mileage) it sucks if I need to go anywhere with my 6'5" partner and two school-age kids. Throw in a 70-pound dog and any sort of luggage and, yeah, no. The Golf (basically a hatchback Jetta) I owned many years ago was far superior in moving people and things.

I can't imagine buying a sedan ever again. I purchased this one because it was a fantastic price, but I now realize that it wasn't worth it.

Learn something new every day. I thought "sedan" was fancy speak for "car."  I didn't realize sedan and hatchback were on the same level as describing classes of vehicle. There's a glossary around here somewhere right?

[RidetheRain]

Hatchbacks are fantastic cars if you either haul four people or two people plus stuff. They are a horrible vehicle when you are hauling four people plus stuff. Kudos to you for making it work.

Did you mean sedans instead of hatchbacks? If so, I agree with you. I currently own a small sedan (Jetta) and while it has many great features (great handling, smooth ride, excellent gas mileage) it sucks if I need to go anywhere with my 6'5" partner and two school-age kids. Throw in a 70-pound dog and any sort of luggage and, yeah, no. The Golf (basically a hatchback Jetta) I owned many years ago was far superior in moving people and things.

I can't imagine buying a sedan ever again. I purchased this one because it was a fantastic price, but I now realize that it wasn't worth it.

No, I think hatchback is accurate here. Most of the things on that list would only fit in my hatchback sans backseats. Except for the folding strollers. That fits just fine. I can get a good eight of the small thin ones and two of the big honking everything ones. You do need to be careful of the back opening, mine is just under four feet at the diagonal so you need to be clever sometimes to get things in and out.

I will point out that most of that stuff is not "regular" items to be driving around. If you have an old ottoman to take to the dump you can shove it in the back with the seats down. Don't bring the whole family on that errand? It seems like a case of the "what ifs". I have a little hatchback, but what if I need to transport an entire soccer team? I should get a bigger car!

[Laura33]

I will point out that most of that stuff is not "regular" items to be driving around. If you have an old ottoman to take to the dump you can shove it in the back with the seats down. Don't bring the whole family on that errand? It seems like a case of the "what ifs". I have a little hatchback, but what if I need to transport an entire soccer team? I should get a bigger car!

ITA.  I think it's pretty common to think of the "oh no, what if I need to . . . " scenario.  You may even feel smart to get the bigger car, because you are "saving" the cost of, say, renting a pickup or U-Haul every time you need to go to the dump.  But in reality, you overestimate how frequently you actually go to the dump, and you ignore the fact that you have a buddy with a pickup anyway.  And since the higher carrying costs of the larger car are much more hidden than the cost of renting an extra vehicle, you typically don't think to compare the real costs of the two options.

I also think there is an emotional component of feeling "prepared" for whatever comes up.  Right out of school I loved knowing that I could shove everything I owned into my car.*  I think that same instinct comes into play when you see the Suburban jammed to the brim, with the topper and towing a trailer with jet-skis and dirt bikes, heading off for vacation somewhere. It's a version of self-sufficiency, of knowing you don't need to stop/ask/buy/whatever.  But "self-sufficiency" is then defined as "having all of my vast quantities of commercial goods so I can have sufficient amounts of fun" -- and when your definition of fun relies on all that stuff, then clearly being self-sufficient requires a Suburban to tote it all.**

*Of course, my car was a VW Rabbit -- slightly different car class.  :-)

**Then again, if you actually use your Suburban-equivalent every weekend to tote the dirt bikes around to various camping spots to have fun with the kids, and you pack your own food and tent and the like, is that really an inappropriate vehicle?  It's probably cheaper than many other vacation options.

[scottish]

I will point out that most of that stuff is not "regular" items to be driving around. If you have an old ottoman to take to the dump you can shove it in the back with the seats down. Don't bring the whole family on that errand? It seems like a case of the "what ifs". I have a little hatchback, but what if I need to transport an entire soccer team? I should get a bigger car!

ITA.  I think it's pretty common to think of the "oh no, what if I need to . . . " scenario.  You may even feel smart to get the bigger car, because you are "saving" the cost of, say, renting a pickup or U-Haul every time you need to go to the dump.  But in reality, you overestimate how frequently you actually go to the dump, and you ignore the fact that you have a buddy with a pickup anyway.  And since the higher carrying costs of the larger car are much more hidden than the cost of renting an extra vehicle, you typically don't think to compare the real costs of the two options.

I also think there is an emotional component of feeling "prepared" for whatever comes up.  Right out of school I loved knowing that I could shove everything I owned into my car.*  I think that same instinct comes into play when you see the Suburban jammed to the brim, with the topper and towing a trailer with jet-skis and dirt bikes, heading off for vacation somewhere. It's a version of self-sufficiency, of knowing you don't need to stop/ask/buy/whatever.  But "self-sufficiency" is then defined as "having all of my vast quantities of commercial goods so I can have sufficient amounts of fun" -- and when your definition of fun relies on all that stuff, then clearly being self-sufficient requires a Suburban to tote it all.**

*Of course, my car was a VW Rabbit -- slightly different car class.  :-)

**Then again, if you actually use your Suburban-equivalent every weekend to tote the dirt bikes around to various camping spots to have fun with the kids, and you pack your own food and tent and the like, is that really an inappropriate vehicle?  It's probably cheaper than many other vacation options.

I agree with this.   I have an older Toyota pickup crew cab.   The first few years it was more or less cost effective because we went camping all the time and made good use of the cargo + people capacity.    Now not so much.   Our Yaris costs 1/2 as much to operate and does the job almost all the time.    Soon I will be faced with losing the pickup, getting a smallish car & renting a van for the rare occasion when I need more cargo capacity.

[Travis]

I will point out that most of that stuff is not "regular" items to be driving around. If you have an old ottoman to take to the dump you can shove it in the back with the seats down. Don't bring the whole family on that errand? It seems like a case of the "what ifs". I have a little hatchback, but what if I need to transport an entire soccer team? I should get a bigger car!

ITA.  I think it's pretty common to think of the "oh no, what if I need to . . . " scenario.  You may even feel smart to get the bigger car, because you are "saving" the cost of, say, renting a pickup or U-Haul every time you need to go to the dump.  But in reality, you overestimate how frequently you actually go to the dump, and you ignore the fact that you have a buddy with a pickup anyway.  And since the higher carrying costs of the larger car are much more hidden than the cost of renting an extra vehicle, you typically don't think to compare the real costs of the two options.

I also think there is an emotional component of feeling "prepared" for whatever comes up.  Right out of school I loved knowing that I could shove everything I owned into my car.*  I think that same instinct comes into play when you see the Suburban jammed to the brim, with the topper and towing a trailer with jet-skis and dirt bikes, heading off for vacation somewhere. It's a version of self-sufficiency, of knowing you don't need to stop/ask/buy/whatever.  But "self-sufficiency" is then defined as "having all of my vast quantities of commercial goods so I can have sufficient amounts of fun" -- and when your definition of fun relies on all that stuff, then clearly being self-sufficient requires a Suburban to tote it all.**

*Of course, my car was a VW Rabbit -- slightly different car class.  :-)

**Then again, if you actually use your Suburban-equivalent every weekend to tote the dirt bikes around to various camping spots to have fun with the kids, and you pack your own food and tent and the like, is that really an inappropriate vehicle?  It's probably cheaper than many other vacation options.

I bought a new truck in 2009 for $30k and owned it for three years. I just moved to Colorado and thought about snow and hauling "stuff."  We lived there for two years and in the end I made 3 trips to the dump to get rid of tree branches and some furniture.  My truck meant nothing for the weather since my wife's Focus did just fine.  Six years later we were back in the same city, except this time I bought a Prius and rented a truck from Home Depot for those occasional hauls for $25/hr.

If you're going to buy the vehicle and make regular use of its features, I have little to argue. On the other hand, if you do in fact own those extracurricular toys and need to move them around, but only do so once or twice a year you're in a bind. You need the vehicle to haul the toys, but if you're barely using them you're wasting money on several big ticket items.

The same goes for owning a home.  Not to get off track, but I just remembered a Zillow commercial from a few years ago where a husband and wife are comparison shopping for a house while separated (I think he was supposed to be in the Army). One of the "what about this?" moments in the commercial was "What if my mother wants to visit?" and the husband clicked "4" bedrooms instead of "3" on the search tool.  My wife and I were guilty of this on our first home and bought way too much house.  Looking back I now think "Hell no I'm not increasing my mortgage by $100/mo for a rarely used guest room!"

[TheGrimSqueaker]

I'm fond of my crossover-type Scion, which is on a car frame. It's useful to me in many ways as a DIY'er homeowner, I load the back up with groceries or building or yard supplies every weekend or two, and I think it's been well reviewed by MMM for that reason. But one of the things I really, really like about it is the fact it allows me the luxury of taking other people with me on road trips.

I tend to either camp out at a campsite with services, or stay for free in La Quinta hotels, where I collect points. Both are pet friendly so I can bring the Venomous Spaz Beast. But if I book their standard room with two queen beds, bringing an extra person or three along doesn't cost me a cent in extra accommodations. The increased cost in gas due to hauling more people and their gear is not large, and the hotels I stay at generally serve breakfast. So the only real increase in cost is due to meals, which-- again-- if you plan reasonably well, a few extra hot dogs over a campfire or an extra loaf of bread for sandwiches won't break the bank. My guests frequently bring the food as their contribution to the trip.

Cost-wise, the difference between going solo and taking three people on one of my budget adventures ends up being almost trivial to me, but it frequently makes the difference between my guests being able to go, or not. It's a small difference to me but a huge difference to the guest.

[mm1970]

I will point out that most of that stuff is not "regular" items to be driving around. If you have an old ottoman to take to the dump you can shove it in the back with the seats down. Don't bring the whole family on that errand? It seems like a case of the "what ifs". I have a little hatchback, but what if I need to transport an entire soccer team? I should get a bigger car!

ITA.  I think it's pretty common to think of the "oh no, what if I need to . . . " scenario.  You may even feel smart to get the bigger car, because you are "saving" the cost of, say, renting a pickup or U-Haul every time you need to go to the dump.  But in reality, you overestimate how frequently you actually go to the dump, and you ignore the fact that you have a buddy with a pickup anyway.  And since the higher carrying costs of the larger car are much more hidden than the cost of renting an extra vehicle, you typically don't think to compare the real costs of the two options.

I also think there is an emotional component of feeling "prepared" for whatever comes up.  Right out of school I loved knowing that I could shove everything I owned into my car.*  I think that same instinct comes into play when you see the Suburban jammed to the brim, with the topper and towing a trailer with jet-skis and dirt bikes, heading off for vacation somewhere. It's a version of self-sufficiency, of knowing you don't need to stop/ask/buy/whatever.  But "self-sufficiency" is then defined as "having all of my vast quantities of commercial goods so I can have sufficient amounts of fun" -- and when your definition of fun relies on all that stuff, then clearly being self-sufficient requires a Suburban to tote it all.**

*Of course, my car was a VW Rabbit -- slightly different car class.  :-)

**Then again, if you actually use your Suburban-equivalent every weekend to tote the dirt bikes around to various camping spots to have fun with the kids, and you pack your own food and tent and the like, is that really an inappropriate vehicle?  It's probably cheaper than many other vacation options.

Right.  This is what I was getting at.  "We are going camping and can't fit everything in a hatchback or sedan!"  Except we can.  I mean, sure, it's the hatchback, and the Thule box on top, and yes the kids have stuff in the seat with them and on the floor.  But since 99%+ of all our driving is NOT going camping, it really doesn't make sense to buy a bigger car for camping trips or road trips to fit plastic bins.  Learn how to pack so that you don't need it.

(My husband is able to fit a bunch of stuff in the hatchback or on the roof rack from Home Depot too, you just don't take the kids with you!!)

On the other hand, my friends who have 4 kids and go camping a lot more often have a Yukon.  Because, big kids, big dog, and a lot of camping gear.  They also go camping a LOT more than we do.  It's how they vacation.

[LennStar]

I think I have already mentioned it, but I drive a car that is so small that I think it is not even sold in the US.

Still I can get 5 people in it.
I can possibly get a normal sized fridge in it.
I can get a 2-person couch in it, too. Did it.
I can get 4 tyres in it, in case you wonder.
I can even get a bike in it. Granted, it took me 3 tries to make the back finally close and the person who had the bike problem had to sit really tight, but then, if you need to carry a bike then chances are extremely high that whatever the reason is, it is for only one person and for less then ten minutes.

So as long as you don't use such things every week, I don't see why you should by a literally double as big pickup or something like that.

[LennStar]

The costs should be levied on the citizens who actually use those services.

Do you ever buy anything in a store? Then you are using those roads. The materials for your house were transported on those roads. Heck even the people who build the drones that will in teh future deliver your Amazon packets use the roads to get to their workplace.

Yes, exactly.   Barges and trains are more efficient at moving goods to you, but their competition (long-haul trucks) is getting a subsidy.

No, trucks are being more efficient because they are faster and more flexible, and flexibility is all that you need.

And I have never seen a river that maintains itself (not to mention increasing the possible ship throughput, which is a 20-year story now for "my" river), so there is a subsidy, too. More per ton usual. 

[TheGrimSqueaker]

The costs should be levied on the citizens who actually use those services.

Do you ever buy anything in a store? Then you are using those roads. The materials for your house were transported on those roads. Heck even the people who build the drones that will in teh future deliver your Amazon packets use the roads to get to their workplace.

Yes, exactly.   Barges and trains are more efficient at moving goods to you, but their competition (long-haul trucks) is getting a subsidy.

No, trucks are being more efficient because they are faster and more flexible, and flexibility is all that you need.

And I have never seen a river that maintains itself (not to mention increasing the possible ship throughput, which is a 20-year story now for "my" river), so there is a subsidy, too. More per ton usual.

To make anything into a viable, reliable system of transit or shipping is going to require investment and accident cleanup.

[Imustacheyouaquestion]

I bought a new truck in 2009 for $30k and owned it for three years. I just moved to Colorado and thought about snow and hauling "stuff."  We lived there for two years and in the end I made 3 trips to the dump to get rid of tree branches and some furniture.  My truck meant nothing for the weather since my wife's Focus did just fine.  Six years later we were back in the same city, except this time I bought a Prius and rented a truck from Home Depot for those occasional hauls for $25/hr.

If you're going to buy the vehicle and make regular use of its features, I have little to argue. On the other hand, if you do in fact own those extracurricular toys and need to move them around, but only do so once or twice a year you're in a bind. You need the vehicle to haul the toys, but if you're barely using them you're wasting money on several big ticket items.

I much prefer a reasonable car that is slated for my daily commute and 95% of my driving needs, and then on the couple occasions per year where I need to haul something bigger, rent a U-Haul or borrow a truck from a friend for a six-pack. If you do the math, it's rarely worth it to drive something with hauling capacity unless you need to haul stuff daily and you make money doing it (e.g. you run a construction business or something). For the "toys" you need to haul, like snowmobiles, boats, mountain bikes, whatever - I think the right calculation is to factor in the cost of hauling them into the leisure activity (and decide if it's still worth it) rather than bumping up your daily costs of getting around in a larger vehicle.

The same goes for owning a home.  Not to get off track, but I just remembered a Zillow commercial from a few years ago where a husband and wife are comparison shopping for a house while separated (I think he was supposed to be in the Army). One of the "what about this?" moments in the commercial was "What if my mother wants to visit?" and the husband clicked "4" bedrooms instead of "3" on the search tool.  My wife and I were guilty of this on our first home and bought way too much house.  Looking back I now think "Hell no I'm not increasing my mortgage by $100/mo for a rarely used guest room!"

This reminds me of a friend who bought a house with extra bedrooms because she likes to coupon, so she needed storage space for all her bulk buys of paper towels and stuff. As George Carlin would say, she just bought a bigger box to store her shit - hundreds of dollars per month in a bigger mortgage payment to save ten cents per roll of toilet paper...

[Travis]

I bought a new truck in 2009 for $30k and owned it for three years. I just moved to Colorado and thought about snow and hauling "stuff."  We lived there for two years and in the end I made 3 trips to the dump to get rid of tree branches and some furniture.  My truck meant nothing for the weather since my wife's Focus did just fine.  Six years later we were back in the same city, except this time I bought a Prius and rented a truck from Home Depot for those occasional hauls for $25/hr.

If you're going to buy the vehicle and make regular use of its features, I have little to argue. On the other hand, if you do in fact own those extracurricular toys and need to move them around, but only do so once or twice a year you're in a bind. You need the vehicle to haul the toys, but if you're barely using them you're wasting money on several big ticket items.

I much prefer a reasonable car that is slated for my daily commute and 95% of my driving needs, and then on the couple occasions per year where I need to haul something bigger, rent a U-Haul or borrow a truck from a friend for a six-pack. If you do the math, it's rarely worth it to drive something with hauling capacity unless you need to haul stuff daily and you make money doing it (e.g. you run a construction business or something). For the "toys" you need to haul, like snowmobiles, boats, mountain bikes, whatever - I think the right calculation is to factor in the cost of hauling them into the leisure activity (and decide if it's still worth it) rather than bumping up your daily costs of getting around in a larger vehicle.

The same goes for owning a home.  Not to get off track, but I just remembered a Zillow commercial from a few years ago where a husband and wife are comparison shopping for a house while separated (I think he was supposed to be in the Army). One of the "what about this?" moments in the commercial was "What if my mother wants to visit?" and the husband clicked "4" bedrooms instead of "3" on the search tool.  My wife and I were guilty of this on our first home and bought way too much house.  Looking back I now think "Hell no I'm not increasing my mortgage by $100/mo for a rarely used guest room!"

This reminds me of a friend who bought a house with extra bedrooms because she likes to coupon, so she needed storage space for all her bulk buys of paper towels and stuff. As George Carlin would say, she just bought a bigger box to store her shit - hundreds of dollars per month in a bigger mortgage payment to save ten cents per roll of toilet paper...

I hear there is a whole industry out there dedicated to selling small storage units you can keep on your property. I think they're called sheds...

[dougules]

I bought a new truck in 2009 for $30k and owned it for three years. I just moved to Colorado and thought about snow and hauling "stuff."  We lived there for two years and in the end I made 3 trips to the dump to get rid of tree branches and some furniture.  My truck meant nothing for the weather since my wife's Focus did just fine.  Six years later we were back in the same city, except this time I bought a Prius and rented a truck from Home Depot for those occasional hauls for $25/hr.

If you're going to buy the vehicle and make regular use of its features, I have little to argue. On the other hand, if you do in fact own those extracurricular toys and need to move them around, but only do so once or twice a year you're in a bind. You need the vehicle to haul the toys, but if you're barely using them you're wasting money on several big ticket items.

I much prefer a reasonable car that is slated for my daily commute and 95% of my driving needs, and then on the couple occasions per year where I need to haul something bigger, rent a U-Haul or borrow a truck from a friend for a six-pack. If you do the math, it's rarely worth it to drive something with hauling capacity unless you need to haul stuff daily and you make money doing it (e.g. you run a construction business or something). For the "toys" you need to haul, like snowmobiles, boats, mountain bikes, whatever - I think the right calculation is to factor in the cost of hauling them into the leisure activity (and decide if it's still worth it) rather than bumping up your daily costs of getting around in a larger vehicle.

The same goes for owning a home.  Not to get off track, but I just remembered a Zillow commercial from a few years ago where a husband and wife are comparison shopping for a house while separated (I think he was supposed to be in the Army). One of the "what about this?" moments in the commercial was "What if my mother wants to visit?" and the husband clicked "4" bedrooms instead of "3" on the search tool.  My wife and I were guilty of this on our first home and bought way too much house.  Looking back I now think "Hell no I'm not increasing my mortgage by $100/mo for a rarely used guest room!"

This reminds me of a friend who bought a house with extra bedrooms because she likes to coupon, so she needed storage space for all her bulk buys of paper towels and stuff. As George Carlin would say, she just bought a bigger box to store her shit - hundreds of dollars per month in a bigger mortgage payment to save ten cents per roll of toilet paper...

I hear there is a whole industry out there dedicated to selling small storage units you can keep on your property. I think they're called sheds...

1) You own a shed so you're not renting it forever.
2) Sheds cost less per square foot than extra house, especially when you consider not having to heat or cool it. 
3) Sheds usually store things you wouldn't want in your house anyway like a mower, gas, a tiller, a kayak, etc. 

[dogboyslim]

Lots of SUV hate here.  I confess, I have a 2015 Expedition EL and love it.  Cheaper transport options out there obviously ($42k purchase price, $500 a year insurance 17 mpg average), but for vacations with the family of 5 its great, and I need the 8k lb towing capacity for our sailboat which gets towed about 5-6 times per year.  I don't drive it on a daily basis, its mostly the "whole family going out" or "need to haul a bunch of stuff" car.  For daily driving we have an 07 focus wagon.  It suits our needs well and is a very nice luxury.

[mm1970]

I bought a new truck in 2009 for $30k and owned it for three years. I just moved to Colorado and thought about snow and hauling "stuff."  We lived there for two years and in the end I made 3 trips to the dump to get rid of tree branches and some furniture.  My truck meant nothing for the weather since my wife's Focus did just fine.  Six years later we were back in the same city, except this time I bought a Prius and rented a truck from Home Depot for those occasional hauls for $25/hr.

If you're going to buy the vehicle and make regular use of its features, I have little to argue. On the other hand, if you do in fact own those extracurricular toys and need to move them around, but only do so once or twice a year you're in a bind. You need the vehicle to haul the toys, but if you're barely using them you're wasting money on several big ticket items.

I much prefer a reasonable car that is slated for my daily commute and 95% of my driving needs, and then on the couple occasions per year where I need to haul something bigger, rent a U-Haul or borrow a truck from a friend for a six-pack. If you do the math, it's rarely worth it to drive something with hauling capacity unless you need to haul stuff daily and you make money doing it (e.g. you run a construction business or something). For the "toys" you need to haul, like snowmobiles, boats, mountain bikes, whatever - I think the right calculation is to factor in the cost of hauling them into the leisure activity (and decide if it's still worth it) rather than bumping up your daily costs of getting around in a larger vehicle.

The same goes for owning a home.  Not to get off track, but I just remembered a Zillow commercial from a few years ago where a husband and wife are comparison shopping for a house while separated (I think he was supposed to be in the Army). One of the "what about this?" moments in the commercial was "What if my mother wants to visit?" and the husband clicked "4" bedrooms instead of "3" on the search tool.  My wife and I were guilty of this on our first home and bought way too much house.  Looking back I now think "Hell no I'm not increasing my mortgage by $100/mo for a rarely used guest room!"

This reminds me of a friend who bought a house with extra bedrooms because she likes to coupon, so she needed storage space for all her bulk buys of paper towels and stuff. As George Carlin would say, she just bought a bigger box to store her shit - hundreds of dollars per month in a bigger mortgage payment to save ten cents per roll of toilet paper...

I hear there is a whole industry out there dedicated to selling small storage units you can keep on your property. I think they're called sheds...

1) You own a shed so you're not renting it forever.
2) Sheds cost less per square foot than extra house, especially when you consider not having to heat or cool it. 
3) Sheds usually store things you wouldn't want in your house anyway like a mower, gas, a tiller, a kayak, etc.

+1

We have a shed because we don't have a garage.  Where do you put your power tools, bicycles, lawnmower (j/k, don't own one of those) if you don't have a garage?  In a shed.

[dogboyslim]

Learn something new every day. I thought "sedan" was fancy speak for "car."  I didn't realize sedan and hatchback were on the same level as describing classes of vehicle. There's a glossary around here somewhere right?

Sedan/Saloon - car - 4 doors and a trunk
Coupe/Coupe - car - 2 doors
Hatchback - car - 4 doors and a lift-glass in the rear, sometimes called 5 door.
Wagon/Estate - Car - 4 doors, an extended cargo area behind the rear seat and a lifting tailgate.
CUV - Imagine something shorter than a wagon, longer than a hatchback, with 2" of suspension lift.
SUV - Imagine a CUV that is longer & wider.  This is a HUGE class of vehicles that includes everything from a Jeep Wrangler to a Cadillac Escalade.  See also - PURE EVIL!!!!!

Hope that helps.

[A Definite Beta Guy]

I bought a new truck in 2009 for $30k and owned it for three years. I just moved to Colorado and thought about snow and hauling "stuff."  We lived there for two years and in the end I made 3 trips to the dump to get rid of tree branches and some furniture.  My truck meant nothing for the weather since my wife's Focus did just fine.  Six years later we were back in the same city, except this time I bought a Prius and rented a truck from Home Depot for those occasional hauls for $25/hr.

If you're going to buy the vehicle and make regular use of its features, I have little to argue. On the other hand, if you do in fact own those extracurricular toys and need to move them around, but only do so once or twice a year you're in a bind. You need the vehicle to haul the toys, but if you're barely using them you're wasting money on several big ticket items.

I much prefer a reasonable car that is slated for my daily commute and 95% of my driving needs, and then on the couple occasions per year where I need to haul something bigger, rent a U-Haul or borrow a truck from a friend for a six-pack. If you do the math, it's rarely worth it to drive something with hauling capacity unless you need to haul stuff daily and you make money doing it (e.g. you run a construction business or something). For the "toys" you need to haul, like snowmobiles, boats, mountain bikes, whatever - I think the right calculation is to factor in the cost of hauling them into the leisure activity (and decide if it's still worth it) rather than bumping up your daily costs of getting around in a larger vehicle.

The same goes for owning a home.  Not to get off track, but I just remembered a Zillow commercial from a few years ago where a husband and wife are comparison shopping for a house while separated (I think he was supposed to be in the Army). One of the "what about this?" moments in the commercial was "What if my mother wants to visit?" and the husband clicked "4" bedrooms instead of "3" on the search tool.  My wife and I were guilty of this on our first home and bought way too much house.  Looking back I now think "Hell no I'm not increasing my mortgage by $100/mo for a rarely used guest room!"

This reminds me of a friend who bought a house with extra bedrooms because she likes to coupon, so she needed storage space for all her bulk buys of paper towels and stuff. As George Carlin would say, she just bought a bigger box to store her shit - hundreds of dollars per month in a bigger mortgage payment to save ten cents per roll of toilet paper...

I hear there is a whole industry out there dedicated to selling small storage units you can keep on your property. I think they're called sheds...

1) You own a shed so you're not renting it forever.
2) Sheds cost less per square foot than extra house, especially when you consider not having to heat or cool it. 
3) Sheds usually store things you wouldn't want in your house anyway like a mower, gas, a tiller, a kayak, etc.

+1

We have a shed because we don't have a garage.  Where do you put your power tools, bicycles, lawnmower (j/k, don't own one of those) if you don't have a garage?  In a shed.

I have a garage and still want a shed. :/

Lawnmower is the least of my problems. Reel mowers are light and compact, so they can be hung from a joist and take up no space. Bikes are a pain in the ass, and then I have a lot of stuff stored for exterior paint-work or general lawn-work. I also have my un-mustachian snowblower which I still have yet to use but was told I needed to buy... :/

[RidetheRain]

I bought a new truck in 2009 for $30k and owned it for three years. I just moved to Colorado and thought about snow and hauling "stuff."  We lived there for two years and in the end I made 3 trips to the dump to get rid of tree branches and some furniture.  My truck meant nothing for the weather since my wife's Focus did just fine.  Six years later we were back in the same city, except this time I bought a Prius and rented a truck from Home Depot for those occasional hauls for $25/hr.

If you're going to buy the vehicle and make regular use of its features, I have little to argue. On the other hand, if you do in fact own those extracurricular toys and need to move them around, but only do so once or twice a year you're in a bind. You need the vehicle to haul the toys, but if you're barely using them you're wasting money on several big ticket items.

I much prefer a reasonable car that is slated for my daily commute and 95% of my driving needs, and then on the couple occasions per year where I need to haul something bigger, rent a U-Haul or borrow a truck from a friend for a six-pack. If you do the math, it's rarely worth it to drive something with hauling capacity unless you need to haul stuff daily and you make money doing it (e.g. you run a construction business or something). For the "toys" you need to haul, like snowmobiles, boats, mountain bikes, whatever - I think the right calculation is to factor in the cost of hauling them into the leisure activity (and decide if it's still worth it) rather than bumping up your daily costs of getting around in a larger vehicle.

The same goes for owning a home.  Not to get off track, but I just remembered a Zillow commercial from a few years ago where a husband and wife are comparison shopping for a house while separated (I think he was supposed to be in the Army). One of the "what about this?" moments in the commercial was "What if my mother wants to visit?" and the husband clicked "4" bedrooms instead of "3" on the search tool.  My wife and I were guilty of this on our first home and bought way too much house.  Looking back I now think "Hell no I'm not increasing my mortgage by $100/mo for a rarely used guest room!"

This reminds me of a friend who bought a house with extra bedrooms because she likes to coupon, so she needed storage space for all her bulk buys of paper towels and stuff. As George Carlin would say, she just bought a bigger box to store her shit - hundreds of dollars per month in a bigger mortgage payment to save ten cents per roll of toilet paper...

I hear there is a whole industry out there dedicated to selling small storage units you can keep on your property. I think they're called sheds...

1) You own a shed so you're not renting it forever.
2) Sheds cost less per square foot than extra house, especially when you consider not having to heat or cool it. 
3) Sheds usually store things you wouldn't want in your house anyway like a mower, gas, a tiller, a kayak, etc.

+1

We have a shed because we don't have a garage.  Where do you put your power tools, bicycles, lawnmower (j/k, don't own one of those) if you don't have a garage?  In a shed.

I have a garage and still want a shed. :/

Lawnmower is the least of my problems. Reel mowers are light and compact, so they can be hung from a joist and take up no space. Bikes are a pain in the ass, and then I have a lot of stuff stored for exterior paint-work or general lawn-work. I also have my un-mustachian snowblower which I still have yet to use but was told I needed to buy... :/

For bikes, I use a pulley system. I have a fairly small garage, but it's much taller than I need because I don't have a gigantic clown car. We made a nice pully system with ropes and some hooks to put our bikes on the ceiling. Easy up and easy down without taking up precious floor space. Only drawback is the car has to be out of the garage to get them down. Next time I'd put them in a better location.

[honeybbq]

I thought of another reason I love my Honda CRV. You can all face punch me, but it's because I can fit my entire bike in the back, upright, without having to take the wheel off. (with folding down the back seat) No taking the wheel off is not a big deal... but it's still a perk I like. :D

This is totally a cheeze-bally reason, but then I don't have to have a bike rack, etc. (I bike a lot, recreationally, and I also race, so I do this a lot).

[dougules]

I thought of another reason I love my Honda CRV. You can all face punch me, but it's because I can fit my entire bike in the back, upright, without having to take the wheel off. (with folding down the back seat) No taking the wheel off is not a big deal... but it's still a perk I like. :D

This is totally a cheeze-bally reason, but then I don't have to have a bike rack, etc. (I bike a lot, recreationally, and I also race, so I do this a lot).

You are catching the irony of hauling a bicycle around, right?

[sol]

I thought of another reason I love my Honda CRV. You can all face punch me, but it's because I can fit my entire bike in the back, upright, without having to take the wheel off. (with folding down the back seat) No taking the wheel off is not a big deal... but it's still a perk I like. :D

This is totally a cheeze-bally reason, but then I don't have to have a bike rack, etc. (I bike a lot, recreationally, and I also race, so I do this a lot).

You are catching the irony of hauling a bicycle around, right?

I don't think he/she caught the post above about the lady who bought a bigger house with an extra bedroom just to hold all of her couponing stuff, either.

Honeybbq, you can get a really nice bike rack for a few hundred dollars, and make up the savings with less gas and insurance over the next six months.  Don't rationalize financially suboptimal solutions to a forum about financial optimization.

Next post:  How I bought a private jet to save on airfare.

[Ze Stash]

The US is not alone in this. The love for SUV's has definitely spread to Europe and I'm just waiting until pick up trucks start showing up more as well. SUV's are commonly called "Hausfrauenpanzer" in Germany which roughly translates to "Housewife tank", but every young family just has to have one for the security of their children. The same goes for american style kitchen renovations for ridiculous amounts of money with the kitchen islands and marble countertops. Those made their way across the pont as well.

[honeybbq]

I thought of another reason I love my Honda CRV. You can all face punch me, but it's because I can fit my entire bike in the back, upright, without having to take the wheel off. (with folding down the back seat) No taking the wheel off is not a big deal... but it's still a perk I like. :D

This is totally a cheeze-bally reason, but then I don't have to have a bike rack, etc. (I bike a lot, recreationally, and I also race, so I do this a lot).

You are catching the irony of hauling a bicycle around, right?

I don't think he/she caught the post above about the lady who bought a bigger house with an extra bedroom just to hold all of her couponing stuff, either.

Honeybbq, you can get a really nice bike rack for a few hundred dollars, and make up the savings with less gas and insurance over the next six months.  Don't rationalize financially suboptimal solutions to a forum about financial optimization.

Next post:  How I bought a private jet to save on airfare.

I have a CRV. I don't have a bike rack, and I don't need one. As stated, I have races to go to and often drive to those (as they are 60+ miles away) and I'm not going to bike to a race when I want to perform my best. . I don't use the CRV to bike commute to work, I just leave from my house. We have organized rides around here that I've done this with as well, but the races start a very long way from my house. Yes, perhaps it seems silly to haul your bike somewhere, but that's what some of the recreational riding is around here. When I'm training, I usually just leave from my house. Meeting up with other riders, etc. It comes in handy.

I don't have a CRV *just* to haul around my bike, as already stated. That's silly. This is just a little perk I thought of the other day as I was going on an organized ride (that GASP I drove to).

[dougules]

I thought of another reason I love my Honda CRV. You can all face punch me, but it's because I can fit my entire bike in the back, upright, without having to take the wheel off. (with folding down the back seat) No taking the wheel off is not a big deal... but it's still a perk I like. :D

This is totally a cheeze-bally reason, but then I don't have to have a bike rack, etc. (I bike a lot, recreationally, and I also race, so I do this a lot).

You are catching the irony of hauling a bicycle around, right?

I don't think he/she caught the post above about the lady who bought a bigger house with an extra bedroom just to hold all of her couponing stuff, either.

Honeybbq, you can get a really nice bike rack for a few hundred dollars, and make up the savings with less gas and insurance over the next six months.  Don't rationalize financially suboptimal solutions to a forum about financial optimization.

Next post:  How I bought a private jet to save on airfare.

I have a CRV. I don't have a bike rack, and I don't need one. As stated, I have races to go to and often drive to those (as they are 60+ miles away) and I'm not going to bike to a race when I want to perform my best. . I don't use the CRV to bike commute to work, I just leave from my house. We have organized rides around here that I've done this with as well, but the races start a very long way from my house. Yes, perhaps it seems silly to haul your bike somewhere, but that's what some of the recreational riding is around here. When I'm training, I usually just leave from my house. Meeting up with other riders, etc. It comes in handy.

I don't have a CRV *just* to haul around my bike, as already stated. That's silly. This is just a little perk I thought of the other day as I was going on an organized ride (that GASP I drove to).

Ok, just asking.  It's one thing to take your bike somewhere a ways away, but there are more than a few people that drive their bike a couple miles without even the slightest idea of the irony. 

[Travis]

The US is not alone in this. The love for SUV's has definitely spread to Europe and I'm just waiting until pick up trucks start showing up more as well. SUV's are commonly called "Hausfrauenpanzer" in Germany which roughly translates to "Housewife tank", but every young family just has to have one for the security of their children. The same goes for american style kitchen renovations for ridiculous amounts of money with the kitchen islands and marble countertops. Those made their way across the pont as well.

That's both disappointing and confusing to read.  Where the hell are they going to put these SUVs? There's nowhere to park in Europe! I rented a RAV4 last year in southern Germany and even in the mountains at any particular moment I was a couple centimeters from hitting something.  It's one of the things I enjoy about driving through Stuttgart (big US Army presence). You can play "spot the American" on the highway by who has an SUV or pickup truck.

[WhiteTrashCash]

Everyone is bashing SUVs, but it's important to keep in mind that if you drive one, then you aren't like other Moms. You're a cool Mom. (I love "Mean Girls".)

[GilbertB]

Everyone is bashing SUVs, but it's important to keep in mind that if you drive one, then you aren't like other Moms. You're a cool Mom. (I love "Mean Girls".)

Based on what I hear from child rearing aged friends residing stateside, it's more "if you drive one, you are like every single other mum there".

Currently the safest véhicule, at any price, available in Europe, is the VW Arteon.
https://www.euroncap.com/en/results/vw/arteon/27324

[saguaro]

DH and I just bought a Subaru Forester, which is the biggest car we have owned after years of owning small cars.  Never thought I would ever get a SUV, nor did DH, but he did the research on it's reliability and that factor carried the day.  Cost was not that much more than if we bought smaller cars that we were looking at and the gas mileage for that size car is reasonable.  It's nice to know we have something that would be bigger for moving stuff and for travel, not to mention the AWD for winter.  The other car is a Chevy Cruze which we use for most of our driving though.

A bit of a story, DH's retired parents are on their second Lincoln MKX, having traded in the first one after a mere 20K miles / 2 years, mindboggling to DH who keeps cars forever.  Anyhoo, in-laws are very status conscious, and after hearing that DH finally got an SUV, FIL stated that DH finally got a "good" car.   That's what a "good" car was, something big and fancy enough, not reliability or good gas mileage and furthermore, in their mind, small cars are what "poor people" drive (their unmustachian mindset is a post for another day).   DH stated that he already had a number of "good" cars especially the two Saturns (original SL series) that we had for over 16 years / 200,000 miles.