The Seductiveness of SUVS

[RetiredAt63]

I've been driving a long time (I am 63, after all) - everything from sporty little things (oh my Saab was fun) to a Jeep Cherokee  (wheeeeee, I can seeee!, and it was fun, it was a standard shift) to a Subaru Legacy (loved the 4wheel drive on Mount Royal in the winter in the slush, and hayfields in the summer for country fairs) to a Windstar (husband's van, only for Cub camps, such a lump) to my present Mazda 3 Sport (i.e. hatchback).   Basically all my hatchbacks have been much more useful than sedans, and the van was only useful a tiny fraction of the total miles driven.  I have put 8' boards and wood pallets in my Mazda (not at the same time) and still been able to close the back.  I do live in the country and haul country-type stuff a lot (those boards are now raised beds in the garden, the pallets are my compost bins).  There are times I would love to have a truck, mostly for messy stuff like manure (it gets bagged) but a small hatchback is great.  Even with kids (daughter and her friends) as passengers, once we got past the car-seat years we never really needed something really big.
Looking back on my year in an apartment (during the week) in Ottawa, if I lived in a city I would probably be down to a Mazda 2, or maybe just my bicycle and taxis, and rentals for out of town trips.

[RootofGood]

Are SUVs really that much more spacious than large sedans?  I've ridden in enough SUVs that seemed pretty cramped in the back seat that I'm hesitant to get one.  And for cargo, most have a tiny sliver of space behind the last row of seats.  I think trunks in large sedans (or the back of a prius) can carry more cargo.

The other side of this is comfort.  SUVs may have more space, but all those I've ridden in are uncomfortable as hell.  Big overstuffed seats that pretty much force you into a bolt-upright posture, no support, no room to properly stretch out your legs...  Give me a Lotus any day.

That's how I feel about SUVs too.  I drive a honda civic.  I'm no small guy and the seat fits me perfectly.  I don't slide side to side, I'm held in place.

Funny, I hate our Civic. I'm (only) 6', but it's just uncomfortable for me. Ours is a 2004 - yours?

I'm 5' 10".  Mine's a 2000.  It fits me like a glove, so maybe your 2 extra inches make a big difference.

[MoneyCat]

Yep.  As I sometimes tell people when they start getting obnoxious about how great their Chevy Brontosaurus or whatever is, I don't need to compensate for anything :-)

LOL!  I drive a hybrid too and, no, that's not a roll of quarters in my pocket for tolls. :-P

[PantsOnFire]

I don't expect everyone to agree with my choices, and I certainly have as much disdain for the vapid twats who drive their Escalades and Hummers simply for the image and pampering they think they "deserve" for whatever reason, but that doesn't mean that I'm automatically a jerk for choosing to own an SUV.

Jerk, perhaps not, but gullible because you've bought into the false "SUVs are safer" meme.

Perhaps not as gullible as you think.  SUVs have lower death rates than cars or trucks. 
http://www.iihs.org/externaldata/srdata/docs/sr4605.pdf

Also look at the trends in this data:
http://www.iihs.org/iihs/topics/insurance-loss-information

Turns out SUVs aren't so bad after all. 

Haters gonna hate. 

[randymarsh]

Turns out SUVs aren't so bad after all. 

Haters gonna hate.

Except for everyone else on the road and the environment.

[ace1224]

But are they safer than minivans, too? Why are we avoiding the minivan?

 Can you tell I love mine? You cant beat those sliding doors for young kids-they never bang anyone's cars in parking lots!

this is true.  my brother and sil have one and i am always amazed that they can push a button and the doors open and close by them selves!! very helpful with 3 kids under 3 and two of them infants

[golden1]

I am kind of surprised at this thread existing on this forum at all actually....

Isn't it a given around here that SUVs are pretty much an unneeded waste of materials and gas for anyone that isn't spending the majority of their time back-roading or hauling heavy boats around? 

Somehow the car industry has convinced a whole bunch of people to buy a car that is twice as expensive as they need for some perceived feeling of looking like a badass and being safer (which they aren't).  Only about 5% of the people who own one of those suckers needs one.  Imagine how much safer the roads would be and how much less gas we would use if 95% of the SUVs were gone. 

I don't get moms with young kids who have SUV's.  They are a PITA to put kids into and they have less storage and seating than a minivan or a wagon.   

There is really no logical reason for most people to own one except for superficial reasons that aren't grounded in real data.

[rocksinmyhead]

But are they safer than minivans, too? Why are we avoiding the minivan?

 Can you tell I love mine? You cant beat those sliding doors for young kids-they never bang anyone's cars in parking lots!

haha, I love how much you love your minivan. They are great! And I didn't even think of the sliding doors/young kids thing, such an asset!!!

[PantsOnFire]

But are they safer than minivans, too? Why are we avoiding the minivan?

By at least one measure (death rate), SUVs as a class are indeed safer. 

I'm not at all implying that an SUV is *better* in all or even most situations, nor that it is particularly "Mustachian".  But to say that they are categorically unsafe or less safe than other cars or trucks is just plain false. 

And if anyone actually looked at the current factual data from the IIHS (see link above), they'd see that even the numbers for injuries CAUSED to other people BY SUVs aren't as high as the anectdotal evidence that's being tossed around in this thread.

[Guses]

http://www.iihs.org/externaldata/srdata/docs/sr4605.pdf[/url]

Also look at the trends in this data:
http://www.iihs.org/iihs/topics/insurance-loss-information

Turns out SUVs aren't so bad after all. 

Haters gonna hate.

The problem with the study that you posted is that, contrary to that posted in one of the first posts, it does not control for deaths caused to others.

This is a very good example of a tragedy of the commons where every actor acting in their best self interest is detrimental to the group as a whole.

Insurance companies should start charging per pound speed squared (i.e., multiply the weight by the squared top speed of the vehicle) to account for the potential for doing much more damage as weight and speed increases.

I think that safety can be discounted as the reason why the majority of people choose buying an SUV. If you consider that you are 20-30 times more likely to die from obesity related disease than from a motor accident, it makes no sense for people to chose buying an SUV over buying proper food and being active. Yet, we all know that obesity is growing at an alarming rate and affects MORE THAN HALF of americans over 20 years of age.


In fact, there is very likely a positive correlation between obesity and choosing a bigger vehicle. Talk about hypocrisy...

[Daley]

The problem with the study that you posted is that, contrary to that posted in one of the first posts, it does not control for deaths caused to others.

You've hit the nail on the head regarding the problem and fallacy of those statistics. SUVs only appear to be safer because they're the equivalent of bringing a bazooka to a duel. You're "safer" in an SUV instead of a smaller car by the insurance industry's statistics because so many other jackanapes are in oversized vehicles as well that the advantage of the SUV from a "safety" perspective is gained because the risk to other drivers posed by SUVs are mitigated with the opposing SUV driver, damage from collisions with other SUVs become equal fights, and collisions with anyone smaller than you guarantees your victory in the larger vehicle.

Meanwhile, SUVs do nothing to address the very real safety risks in driving in general, and as such are higher risk vehicles to operate. The elevation detaches you from the physical feedback and visual input of the road and raises your center of gravity thus increasing the likelihood of a rollover and control loss, and the additional mass makes it slower to respond to user input in emergency situations. Crash tests and insurance statistics only prove that engineers are able to compensate for the added safety issues to the driver of these behemoths, but simple physics dictates that the same reason why they're safer in impacts with cars and other objects are the same reason why they're more likely to lose control in the first place. Couple that fact with their fuel efficiency? Sorry, no.

[Bethany J]

Married with 2 kids and a dog. Love my 08 Prius! Only car I ever want to have, traded in my Chevy Traverse to get the Prius ( Miss Plata) we call her. If my 9 year old son is lucky, he will get her when he is old/mature enough to drive. My husband and most men, however do not share the Prius love. Husband has a Ford Explorer ( free work vehicle, he pays nothing for it) that he prefers.

Funny comment from my 8 year old daughter's friend when I picked them up in carpool: "Where is the other row of seats?" I told here this is all there is and I love it.

[Jamesqf]

Meanwhile, SUVs do nothing to address the very real safety risks in driving in general, and as such are higher risk vehicles to operate. The elevation detaches you from the physical feedback and visual input of the road...

Add the delusion that 4WD/AWD lets you drive and stop just as well on snow & ice as on dry pavement.  One of my more amusing memories is of watching a big SUV approach a light at speed on a snowy day.  Light changes, driver hits brakes, SUV continues through the (luckily nearly deserted) intersection and out of sight, doing slow 360 degree pirouettes.

[Daley]

Add the delusion that 4WD/AWD lets you drive and stop just as well on snow & ice as on dry pavement.  One of my more amusing memories is of watching a big SUV approach a light at speed on a snowy day.  Light changes, driver hits brakes, SUV continues through the (luckily nearly deserted) intersection and out of sight, doing slow 360 degree pirouettes.

But hey, look on the bright side... because they were driving an SUV instead of a regular car, they're less likely to get seriously injured or killed due to their gross negligence and unbridled incompetence!

SAFETY IN ACTION, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN!

[okashira]

Thanks for the study,

IMO, it's flat out irresponsible that the IIHS study did not include total death rate from SUV accidents, only occupants of the SUV.

[PantsOnFire]

http://www.iihs.org/externaldata/srdata/docs/sr4605.pdf[/url]

Also look at the trends in this data:
http://www.iihs.org/iihs/topics/insurance-loss-information

Turns out SUVs aren't so bad after all. 

Haters gonna hate.

The problem with the study that you posted is that, contrary to that posted in one of the first posts, it does not control for deaths caused to others.

I didn't post just one study.  And I also didn't post one that's nearly 12 years outdated. 

[Daley]

I didn't post just one study.  And I also didn't post one that's nearly 12 years outdated.

Maybe not, but it doesn't change the fact that your argument for safety is built around the padding concept. It's like claiming American football is safer than rugby because they wear pads. All it proves is that engineers have learned to better hide the greater safety risk of driving these vehicles from the owners. All it does is reward reckless behavior by reducing the consequences of their choices and actions.

Sometimes stupid people need less protection, otherwise they'll never learn not to run into things head-first to begin with. Modern SUVs are the sort of added safety that becomes necessary when you have drivers who shouldn't be allowed on the road in the first place (most of which drive SUVs for their added safety to offset their inability to safely operate a motor vehicle).

[mrigney]

I come back to find this thread has blown up! Didn't expect it to get this passionate, but I like it. I can see both sides of the debate. For us, it's about what is the least amount of car that we need? Let's not get more than that. And then once we figure out what the least care we need is, which car is the best price/environment/reliability wise.

@Bethany_J Good to hear things like that. I appreciate knowing that people in our situation have had good experiences. Almost positive we're going to go with a '10 or '11 Prius at this point. We'll put our Sonata on the market after the New Year and see what we can get for it.

[Tetsuya Hondo]

First, thanks to whoever posted the IIHS data. I loves me some data.

A few observations though:

• Basing a car purchase just on the aggregate data for a particular class is a bad idea. There's a lot of variance between many makes and models within each class.
• There are plenty of smaller, fuel efficient cars that do better than SUVs.
• Basing a car decision just on the weight of the cars is a bad idea. Too many studies use a simple correlation between weight and injuries or fatalities to draw general conclusions - and even IIHS does this to an extent. Yet, there's a number of outliers driving these correlations. For example, some poorly made small cars are not very safe and have some excessively bad numbers. This masks those better engineered small cars that appear to be pretty safe.
• Speaking of, the personal injury numbers for the Mini Cooper and Smart (not included in the first study, just the second set of data) were impressive. It appears to do better in the personal injury category than most of the small SUVs and many mid-size SUVs.

[Guses]

Yoink

[Jamesqf]

I didn't post just one study.  And I also didn't post one that's nearly 12 years outdated.

You're free to find better and/or more recent ones.  However, I don't believe physics has changed all that much in 12 years :-)

I am terrified of a tall SUV backing over my small kids in a parking lot. This is honestly my biggest fear for my kids.

Or in their (grand)parents' driveway.  Backover accidents aren't that uncommon (one happened to an acquaintance of mine), and probably aren't included in highway safety stats because the don't happen on the road.

[randymarsh]

I am terrified of a tall SUV backing over my small kids in a parking lot. This is honestly my biggest fear for my kids.

Don't worry too much, they added a backup camera and radar to trigger a warning chime if an object is in the way to correct this flaw. ;)

[dragoncar]

I am terrified of a tall SUV backing over my small kids in a parking lot. This is honestly my biggest fear for my kids.

Don't worry too much, they added a backup camera and radar to trigger a warning chime if an object is in the way to correct this flaw. ;)

But what if I need to pee?

[Purple Economist]

I didn't post just one study.  And I also didn't post one that's nearly 12 years outdated.

You're free to find better and/or more recent ones.  However, I don't believe physics has changed all that much in 12 years :-)

I am terrified of a tall SUV backing over my small kids in a parking lot. This is honestly my biggest fear for my kids.

Or in their (grand)parents' driveway.  Backover accidents aren't that uncommon (one happened to an acquaintance of mine), and probably aren't included in highway safety stats because the don't happen on the road.

Physics hasn't changed in 12 years, but engineers' responses to physics have.  The main reason that SUVs were not safer in the 2002 Wenzel and Ross study was the risk of rollover from SUVs.  This problem has largely been corrected by manufacturers.  Electronic Stability Control has been on of the main innovations that has made SUVs safer.  For 2005 - 2008 model years, passengers in SUVs had a lower fatality rate than other models.  Of the top 15 lowest driver death rate vehicles, 10 are 4WD SUVs.

http://www.iihs.org/externaldata/srdata/docs/sr4605.pdf

Backover accidents aren't uncommon because you know someone that it happened to?

[Guses]

We've already established that SUVs are "safer" because they put other's safety at risk. We are saying that overall, SUVs are less safe when you consider deaths to others.

[Jamesqf]

Backover accidents aren't uncommon because you know someone that it happened to?

(Sigh) Logical separation: 1) Backover accidents aren't uncommon, a fact derived from news reports, accident statistics, &c; 2) I happen to know someone it happened to, an anecdote inserted to add interest.  See for instance how many a news article is written.

[Purple Economist]

We've already established that SUVs are "safer" because they put other's safety at risk. We are saying that overall, SUVs are less safe when you consider deaths to others.

Did you look at the IIHS study?  SUVs have lower death rates in single vechicle accidents and single vehicle rollover accidents.  How is that putting others at risk to make yourself safer?

Backover accidents aren't uncommon because you know someone that it happened to?

(Sigh) Logical separation: 1) Backover accidents aren't uncommon, a fact derived from news reports, accident statistics, &c; 2) I happen to know someone it happened to, an anecdote inserted to add interest.  See for instance how many a news article is written.

Sorry, I'm not disputing that backover accidents are not uncommon.  I was just pointing out what I thought was humorous about the way you phrased it.

[Jamesqf]

Did you look at the IIHS study?  SUVs have lower death rates in single vechicle accidents and single vehicle rollover accidents.

Yes, I've looked at the study.  Seems pretty obviously flawed to me.  The most glaring problem is that it's only looking at driver death rates, not passengers or people in other vehicles.  It's also not adjusting for miles driven, etc.

Quite apart from all that, I'd have to say that the source is more than a little suspect.  It is, after all, not a sciectific study, but the product of an insurance industry trade group.  I wouldn't be at all surprised to discover that they're massaging their figures to keep customers happy - and lots of them want to keep on believing that their overstuffed SUVs really are safe. 

But there's an easy way to check this: price liability insurance for different vehicles.  Bet you'll discover that the bigger the vehicle, the more it costs.

[Daley]

We've already established that SUVs are "safer" because they put other's safety at risk. We are saying that overall, SUVs are less safe when you consider deaths to others.

Did you look at the IIHS study?  SUVs have lower death rates in single vechicle accidents and single vehicle rollover accidents.  How is that putting others at risk to make yourself safer?

Because it ignores the fact that the physics of these SUVs increases the likelihood of drivers losing control of the vehicle sufficiently to cause a single vehicle wreck in the first place, which by virtue also increases the chance of causing multi-vehicle accidents. It also ignores that this increase in statistical safety versus smaller cars is insignificant at best within the greater picture. Finally, no matter how statistically (in)significant this increase in personal safety may be with single vehicle accidents, it completely ignores the impact and damage these vehicles pose to smaller cars daily due to headlight glare, physical size, mass issues with control and collisions, and the out-of-touch meatheads who take these statistics as gospel and think buying an SUV makes them invincible on the road to begin with... and we haven't even touched on the whole environmental impact of the monstrosities. As I said before, it's padding safety logic. All the engineers have done is successfully hidden the risk and true damage of owning this type of vehicle from the owner.

It's all lies, damned lies and statistics. Using the safety argument to justify SUV ownership is foolish. After all, why stop there? If bigger truly is safer, we should clearly all standardize on the Hummer H1 as the safest family vehicle! If you're going to be an a**hole in a giant clown car for the sake of your family's "safety", might as well do it up right, eh?

[RootofGood]

It's all lies, damned lies and statistics. Using the safety argument to justify SUV ownership is foolish. After all, why stop there? If bigger truly is safer, we should clearly all standardize on the Hummer H1 as the safest family vehicle! If you're going to be an a**hole in a giant clown car for the sake of your family's "safety", might as well do it up right, eh?

Perhaps even safer than driving the H1 all over the place would be to leave the H1 in the driveway and walk (or bike) to many places*.  Driving less can increase your overall safety significantly. 


*I hope no one pokes holes my logic by questioning the role of the H1 in the first place. 

[senecando]

Finally, no matter how statistically (in)significant this increase in personal safety may be with single vehicle accidents, it completely ignores the impact and damage these vehicles pose to smaller cars daily due to headlight glare, physical size, mass issues with control and collisions, and the out-of-touch meatheads who take these statistics as gospel and think buying an SUV makes them invincible on the road to begin with...

Thank god it's not only me. I swear newer cars have brighter running lights than my car's brights, and they are at eye level. Drives me mad.

[gecko10x]

[Disclaimer: I have not read the whole thread yet]

For those claiming that SUVs are gas guzzlers and we should all be driving minivans - what are you comparing? Because based on FuelEconomy.gov, the BEST 2013 minivan gets 24mpg; much lower than the best hatches or CUVs/SUVs.

[daverobev]

[Disclaimer: I have not read the whole thread yet]

For those claiming that SUVs are gas guzzlers and we should all be driving minivans - what are you comparing? Because based on FuelEconomy.gov, the BEST 2013 minivan gets 24mpg; much lower than the best hatches or CUVs/SUVs.

I think the point is, get a hatch if you need the boot space (or basically need a car at all as hatch > sedan); if you have > 2 children, a minivan is a good option and is much more flexible than an SUV.

IOW: SUVs serve no purpose.

[gecko10x]

[Disclaimer: I have not read the whole thread yet]

For those claiming that SUVs are gas guzzlers and we should all be driving minivans - what are you comparing? Because based on FuelEconomy.gov, the BEST 2013 minivan gets 24mpg; much lower than the best hatches or CUVs/SUVs.

I think the point is, get a hatch if you need the boot space (or basically need a car at all as hatch > sedan); if you have > 2 children, a minivan is a good option and is much more flexible than an SUV.

IOW: SUVs serve no purpose.

If I want something >hatch, I'm getting a CUV. Current minivans get crap mileage and there are very few on the market. To each his own, certainly, but the blanket statement being made by yourself and others in this thread that SUVs serve no purpose is crap.

Now, maybe if we make the distinction between CUV/crossover and mega SUV, I'd be on your side against the SUV. But there's a big difference between a Lincoln Navigator and Honda CRV, for instance.

[Jamesqf]

But there's a big difference between a Lincoln Navigator and Honda CRV, for instance.

Yes.  I certainly wouldn't think of the CRV as an SUV.  Maybe there ought to be a mini-SUV category?

PS: It's rather like pickup trucks.  There's a considerable difference between say my '88 Toyota, a fairly minimalist hauling & driving on dirt roads tool, and a gargantuan F-350 (with almost the same size bed!) used to commute to the urban office.

[daverobev]

CRV = Civic on stilts. A Mazda 5 has more room, and is more efficient.

Source: MIL has CRV, SIL has Mazda 5.

God damn the CRV gets 10 l/100km the way my MIL drives it! It's an I4 (though admittedly 'AWD').

[infogoon]

Yes.  I certainly wouldn't think of the CRV as an SUV.  Maybe there ought to be a mini-SUV category?

Well, we used to call vehicles built on a car chassis with a liftgate "station wagons", but that seems to have gone out of vogue now that they're a bit taller.

[daverobev]

Yes.  I certainly wouldn't think of the CRV as an SUV.  Maybe there ought to be a mini-SUV category?

Well, we used to call vehicles built on a car chassis with a liftgate "station wagons", but that seems to have gone out of vogue now that they're a bit taller.

There are still a few wagons about! In the UK we call them 'estates'.

There is a Ford Focus wagon, Cadillac CTS? I think, etc.

[Posthumane]

If bigger truly is safer, we should clearly all standardize on the Hummer H1 as the safest family vehicle! If you're going to be an a**hole in a giant clown car for the sake of your family's "safety", might as well do it up right, eh?

Ironically, the original Hummer probably has one of the highest death rates per km driven. Mind you, many of the deaths are caused by IEDs and gunfire rather than traffic accidents, and it seems vehicles painted green or tan have a higher propensity to be involved in those types of incidents for some reason... It must have something to do with the demographic of the most common users of those vehicles - mostly young men.

[racherinh]

I'm so glad someone finally mentioned the Mazda5! We have 3 kids, and can fit one more in there. It gets decent mileage (compared to our former 2-door Civic which I still miss), and it's much smaller and easier to drive than standard minivans or SUVs. I really dislike driving large cars. I fail to see how someone with 2 young kids (like, pre-school) needs something bigger than our old Honda Civic (yes, I had two carseats in there, no I never removed the enormous annoying buckets, I just carried my kid), or at most some normal kind of 4 door sedan. And with 3-4, I haven't seen any car that I would like better than our Mazda5. Except for those crazy family bikes, of course =).

So, I fall into the SUVs are useless camp. The small ones all seat fewer people than our car. I don't like big cars, I don't like wasting gas, I don't like spending crazy amounts of money on something I'm trying to use as little as possible, and I think compared to the car I've chosen, the safety thing is pretty even. The best thing to do is to drive less, and drive during off-peak times. We did our best to live within walking distance (less than 1.5 miles) of most of the things we do (ballet, swimming, library, schools, church), so except for groceries we have very little driving to do.

[Jamesqf]

So, I fall into the SUVs are useless camp.

I wouldn't go quite that far.  I do think there's a market niche for a smaller vehicle that is good at travelling on rough dirt roads and such, say something like the original Jeep or the Suzuki Samuri/Sidekick, or even the early Toyota 4Runner.  Problem is the typical SUV has been jacked up & bloated to the point where all it is good for is hauling a trailer load of quads to the ned of the pavement.

[gecko10x]

CRV = Civic on stilts. A Mazda 5 has more room, and is more efficient.

Source: MIL has CRV, SIL has Mazda 5.

God damn the CRV gets 10 l/100km the way my MIL drives it! It's an I4 (though admittedly 'AWD').

2013 CRV (4WD) is rated at 25mpg combined. 2013 Mazda 5 is rated at 24. (Source: fueleconomy.gov)

Based on CR-V and Mazda5, they look to be about the same size. Comparable person-space, but looks like you could fit more in the CR-V since the middle seats in the Mazda5 don't fold and aren't removable.

Not that I have anything against the Mazda5- I like Mazdas, and it is the most fuel-efficient minivan on the market. But you're making false claims here.

Edit: just realized daverobev is from the UK. I apologize if my quoted specs don't match the UK versions of those vehicles.

[infogoon]

Comparable person-space, but looks like you could fit more in the CR-V since the middle seats in the Mazda5 don't fold and aren't removable.

Isn't the CR-V only two rows of seating?

[gecko10x]

Comparable person-space, but looks like you could fit more in the CR-V since the middle seats in the Mazda5 don't fold and aren't removable.

Isn't the CR-V only two rows of seating?

Absolutely. Perhaps I miss-interpreted the "has more room", but I assumed daveoreb meant more cargo space and/or more space per person. If he meant more room for people, that's my bad.

[RootofGood]

So, I fall into the SUVs are useless camp. The small ones all seat fewer people than our car. I don't like big cars, I don't like wasting gas, I don't like spending crazy amounts of money on something I'm trying to use as little as possible, and I think compared to the car I've chosen, the safety thing is pretty even. The best thing to do is to drive less, and drive during off-peak times. We did our best to live within walking distance (less than 1.5 miles) of most of the things we do (ballet, swimming, library, schools, church), so except for groceries we have very little driving to do.

But how can you tow your boat with a mazda 5? 

Seriously, can't agree more.  Like you, we live close to everything.  Except swimming which is 3.5 miles away for the indoor waterpark/pool.  We tend to walk to many places with the kids.  And if there's driving involved, it's rarely over 2-3 miles.  They think the 20 minute drive to grandma's house is a long drive because they aren't used to riding in cars for more than 5 minutes or so.  Maybe the kids could sprawl out in the back of a large SUV compared to our civic and accord, but they only spend 10-20 minutes per week in the car (often zero).  Kind of a low value proposition to spend a lot of additional money on something that gets very little use (in our situation).

[Jamesqf]

But how can you tow your boat with a mazda 5?

Get a smaller boat :-) 

[daverobev]

CRV = Civic on stilts. A Mazda 5 has more room, and is more efficient.

Source: MIL has CRV, SIL has Mazda 5.

God damn the CRV gets 10 l/100km the way my MIL drives it! It's an I4 (though admittedly 'AWD').

2013 CRV (4WD) is rated at 25mpg combined. 2013 Mazda 5 is rated at 24. (Source: fueleconomy.gov)

Based on CR-V and Mazda5, they look to be about the same size. Comparable person-space, but looks like you could fit more in the CR-V since the middle seats in the Mazda5 don't fold and aren't removable.

Not that I have anything against the Mazda5- I like Mazdas, and it is the most fuel-efficient minivan on the market. But you're making false claims here.

Edit: just realized daverobev is from the UK. I apologize if my quoted specs don't match the UK versions of those vehicles.

No that's a fair comment, but if you look http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/Find.do?action=sbs&id=29742&id=29749 the actual mileage numbers show the M5 as much better than the CRV (EPA shows a tie). If you take the manual trans option for the Mazda it's even better.

We had a fridge-freezer (not a huge one, danby something that is about 5' tall I guess, laid down of course) in the back of the CRV so it's not all bad. The M5 is much roomier in terms of people + cargo. If you were to fold everything down in the CRV just to carry stuff all the time then sure, it would win by a small margin. M5 is 6 people cramped or 4 + lots of cargo (two folding seats in the back). CRV space in the back *without* folding the seats is pathetic.

I'm from the UK but live in Canada, so I'm talking about the NA versions. In the UK we'd be looking at turbo diesel and manual in everything.