Why buy a mid-size sedan...?
- Thread starter k24a4
- Start date
- Status
Originally Posted By: eljefino
Loading my kids into the rear car seats was a hassle, it was hard to not bonk their heads on the roof while I stooped over. I threw my back out once loading my 3 year old. One can get into a CUV easily for this.
This is a great point for those of us with kids. Both of ours are still in car seats or booster seats. A taller vehicle puts them at chest height for the parent, reducing the likelihood of injury (yes, injuring a back DOES happen trying to get kids into car seats).
Loading my kids into the rear car seats was a hassle, it was hard to not bonk their heads on the roof while I stooped over. I threw my back out once loading my 3 year old. One can get into a CUV easily for this.
This is a great point for those of us with kids. Both of ours are still in car seats or booster seats. A taller vehicle puts them at chest height for the parent, reducing the likelihood of injury (yes, injuring a back DOES happen trying to get kids into car seats).
Originally Posted By: Hokiefyd
Your BMW M3 intentionally sacrifices its ability to stop or swerve just to provide a climate-controlled cabin and a radio...compared with a race car. It's all relative.
I didn't say a cabin or radio. I said a high seating position and a certain image. Those words were carefully chosen.
Your BMW M3 intentionally sacrifices its ability to stop or swerve just to provide a climate-controlled cabin and a radio...compared with a race car. It's all relative.
I didn't say a cabin or radio. I said a high seating position and a certain image. Those words were carefully chosen.
I want a trunk, and a cargo cover is not the same as a trunk. Also unless you get into the X6M or Cayenne Turbo territory, CUVs handle like dog poo. Also their braking leaves a lot to be desired for the most part. Engine options seem to be in the low power range as well. I want something with 300hp minimum like my Volvo has, preferably closer to the 450 range.
I consider my Volvo a compromise. I really wanted RWD, but at the time this car was available and it fit all the other requirements.
I consider my Volvo a compromise. I really wanted RWD, but at the time this car was available and it fit all the other requirements.
Originally Posted By: d00df00d
Originally Posted By: Hokiefyd
Your BMW M3 intentionally sacrifices its ability to stop or swerve just to provide a climate-controlled cabin and a radio...compared with a race car. It's all relative.
I didn't say a cabin or radio. I said a high seating position and a certain image. Those words were carefully chosen.
If those two aspects are the only reasons for buying a car, then I'm with you: I can't imagine that either.
Originally Posted By: Hokiefyd
Your BMW M3 intentionally sacrifices its ability to stop or swerve just to provide a climate-controlled cabin and a radio...compared with a race car. It's all relative.
I didn't say a cabin or radio. I said a high seating position and a certain image. Those words were carefully chosen.
If those two aspects are the only reasons for buying a car, then I'm with you: I can't imagine that either.
Kitacamry's seat is high, even at its lowest setting, for all those older shrinking folk who buy them I guess...I wish the seat was lower...I wish I sat IN the seat rather than ON it...
Autocar got a chance to take one for a spin in the UK, where the car is readily available for purchase. Autocar called the 173 HP motor “refined and, with 309 lb-ft of torque, (capable of delivering a) reasonable shove.” A 300 lb-ft “shove” in the back-side sounds fine to me, especially when the aerodynamically-efficient wagon gives back 57 miles of highway awesomeness for each gallon of diesel you give it (61, with manual-transmission).
That's 47/51 mpg in US gals!
That mazda6 wagon looks nice! I'd be happy to have it with the 2.5 liter gasoline engine that is already here.
Well, I don't want to cram a baby, three dogs, and all the stuff a weekend jaunt to the lake house involves, into one of the sedans, so the CUV definitely has a place in our life.
That's why we own one. I don't know about anyone else, or really care about what image it projects (what image does it project?).
Our sedans are larger ( by today's standards ), and could probably hold everything, but I don't want dogs crawling all over them.
Ours goes, stops, and turns pretty well, possibly better than many sedans, and it does have a great sound system, that cool DVD thing in the roof, and a great a/c. It's much more comfortable and fuel efficient than the SUV it replaced.
Just like SUV's, these things are popular for a reason. Station wagons aren't, again, for a reason.
That's why we own one. I don't know about anyone else, or really care about what image it projects (what image does it project?).
Our sedans are larger ( by today's standards ), and could probably hold everything, but I don't want dogs crawling all over them.
Ours goes, stops, and turns pretty well, possibly better than many sedans, and it does have a great sound system, that cool DVD thing in the roof, and a great a/c. It's much more comfortable and fuel efficient than the SUV it replaced.
Just like SUV's, these things are popular for a reason. Station wagons aren't, again, for a reason.
Originally Posted By: Win
Just like SUV's, these things are popular for a reason. Station wagons aren't, again, for a reason.
Depends where. Station wagons are very popular in Europe, for example.
Just like SUV's, these things are popular for a reason. Station wagons aren't, again, for a reason.
Depends where. Station wagons are very popular in Europe, for example.
Originally Posted By: Win
Just like SUV's, these things are popular for a reason. Station wagons aren't, again, for a reason.
People flocked to SUVs and CUVs from minivans and wagons largely because they didn't like the "soccer mom" or "old person" image of minivans and wagons. In my view, that hardly counts as "for a reason."
Just like SUV's, these things are popular for a reason. Station wagons aren't, again, for a reason.
People flocked to SUVs and CUVs from minivans and wagons largely because they didn't like the "soccer mom" or "old person" image of minivans and wagons. In my view, that hardly counts as "for a reason."
Because CUVs still handle like dumpy minivans.
Minivans handle better now than ever. But they are still dumptrucks compared to a Passat or Mazda6. If I needed the space, I would just get the minivan.
So Acura puts SH-AWD on the MDX. You get a little loose in a corner....what are you supposed to do? Give it more gas! That's real reassuring in a high roof/ high cg vehicle
Mazda puts a hatch back on the US market 6 and I will get one. But right now, my 5-door Mazda6 does 95% of what a CUV does, and doesn't flinch from twisty roads. It devours them
CUVs are overrated
Minivans handle better now than ever. But they are still dumptrucks compared to a Passat or Mazda6. If I needed the space, I would just get the minivan.
So Acura puts SH-AWD on the MDX. You get a little loose in a corner....what are you supposed to do? Give it more gas! That's real reassuring in a high roof/ high cg vehicle
Mazda puts a hatch back on the US market 6 and I will get one. But right now, my 5-door Mazda6 does 95% of what a CUV does, and doesn't flinch from twisty roads. It devours them
CUVs are overrated
CUV's typically have a much more usable cargo area when empty or even with passengers inside. Also clearance is a factor in the winter area AWD or not. Our winter place requires you to pass through 10"-20" windblown powder over a 1/4 mile either on foot (sedan) or pass with a CUV.
Recently I picked up my father on a move home from abroad. 5 (over) size suitcases and 3 smaller bags. Not happening in any sedan. Honestly barely happened in my MDX.
I have a CUV and its beyond comfortable and in normal driving dynamics are decent enough(Acura MDX). The main reason though is ability to put extra kids in a pinch as it has 7 passenger abilities.
I prefer driving sedans and wagons with manual transmissions and decent dynamics. CUV's will never have either.
Recently I picked up my father on a move home from abroad. 5 (over) size suitcases and 3 smaller bags. Not happening in any sedan. Honestly barely happened in my MDX.
I have a CUV and its beyond comfortable and in normal driving dynamics are decent enough(Acura MDX). The main reason though is ability to put extra kids in a pinch as it has 7 passenger abilities.
I prefer driving sedans and wagons with manual transmissions and decent dynamics. CUV's will never have either.
Originally Posted By: Spazdog
Because CUVs still handle like dumpy minivans.
If you get the opportunity to directly compare an SUV (or even a smaller CUV), you'll recognize that they handle NOTHING like minivans. We owned two minivans. And now we own two SUVs. And it's for a reason. The minivan was an understeering pig. You couldn't get it to rotate if your life depended on it. And it was too limiting of a platform.
Both of our current cars: accelerate better than our minivans, stop better than our minivans, and handle FAR better than our minivans. Our larger SUV even has a third row seat, which we use often. It gets us to the back side of the lake for a picnic, where our van couldn't go. It's far better able to handle the many ice storms we get in central NC than our van was. Our van simply couldn't do what we wanted out of a family vehicle. Our SUV does.
That's really the bottom line. Every family will be different, and every family's needs will be different. One can make generalizations about what a vehicle is or isn't, and one can pretend to know why people buy something (for an "image"), but when it comes down to it, most people are going to do what is best for their family situation. If that's a sedan, great. If that's an SUV, great. If that's a minivan, great. If that's a hatchback, great.
As I said before, we are blessed to have the choice of vehicles we have in this country.
Because CUVs still handle like dumpy minivans.
If you get the opportunity to directly compare an SUV (or even a smaller CUV), you'll recognize that they handle NOTHING like minivans. We owned two minivans. And now we own two SUVs. And it's for a reason. The minivan was an understeering pig. You couldn't get it to rotate if your life depended on it. And it was too limiting of a platform.
Both of our current cars: accelerate better than our minivans, stop better than our minivans, and handle FAR better than our minivans. Our larger SUV even has a third row seat, which we use often. It gets us to the back side of the lake for a picnic, where our van couldn't go. It's far better able to handle the many ice storms we get in central NC than our van was. Our van simply couldn't do what we wanted out of a family vehicle. Our SUV does.
That's really the bottom line. Every family will be different, and every family's needs will be different. One can make generalizations about what a vehicle is or isn't, and one can pretend to know why people buy something (for an "image"), but when it comes down to it, most people are going to do what is best for their family situation. If that's a sedan, great. If that's an SUV, great. If that's a minivan, great. If that's a hatchback, great.
As I said before, we are blessed to have the choice of vehicles we have in this country.
Originally Posted By: d00df00d
Originally Posted By: Win
Just like SUV's, these things are popular for a reason. Station wagons aren't, again, for a reason.
People flocked to SUVs and CUVs from minivans and wagons largely because they didn't like the "soccer mom" or "old person" image of minivans and wagons. In my view, that hardly counts as "for a reason."
People flock to BMWs for "an image", too. Does that mean that BMWs have no purpose?
(Answer: of course not)
Originally Posted By: Win
Just like SUV's, these things are popular for a reason. Station wagons aren't, again, for a reason.
People flocked to SUVs and CUVs from minivans and wagons largely because they didn't like the "soccer mom" or "old person" image of minivans and wagons. In my view, that hardly counts as "for a reason."
People flock to BMWs for "an image", too. Does that mean that BMWs have no purpose?
(Answer: of course not)
Originally Posted By: Hokiefyd
People flock to BMWs for "an image", too. Does that mean that BMWs have no purpose?
(Answer: of course not)
No. Here's what it does mean:
1. Buying trends do not reflect what BMWs are actually good at.
2. BMW has been adjusting its products over the years to appeal to people who don't even recognize (much less value) good driving dynamics.
You can't look at BMW's sales numbers and say "well, obviously people appreciate good driving dynamics." They wanted the badge. In the same way, you can't look at the way SUV sales exploded in the 90s and say "well, obviously people wanted ground clearance and cargo/towing capacity."
By the same token, CUVs have been getting more and more car-like to accommodate the people who really have no need for the defining features of SUVs relative to cars (high ground clearance and a long hood with a shallow slope).
Of course, it's inevitable that SOME people will have needs and wants that happen to perfectly suit a BMW or a CUV. You've evidently done quite a thorough job deciding on your MDX, and you seem to still feel it's the right vehicle for your use. A friend of mine bought a BMW 128i because nothing else on the market works better for him. I once met someone for whom a Mercury Mariner was literally the only small-ish vehicle in which he could fit comfortably. Still, when I ask the vast majority of BMW or SUV/CUV owners why they bought their cars over wagons or minivans, they are happy to acknowledge that other vehicles might have done the job better, but what they really wanted was a high seating position and/or not to feel like XYZ kind of person.
People flock to BMWs for "an image", too. Does that mean that BMWs have no purpose?
(Answer: of course not)
No. Here's what it does mean:
1. Buying trends do not reflect what BMWs are actually good at.
2. BMW has been adjusting its products over the years to appeal to people who don't even recognize (much less value) good driving dynamics.
You can't look at BMW's sales numbers and say "well, obviously people appreciate good driving dynamics." They wanted the badge. In the same way, you can't look at the way SUV sales exploded in the 90s and say "well, obviously people wanted ground clearance and cargo/towing capacity."
By the same token, CUVs have been getting more and more car-like to accommodate the people who really have no need for the defining features of SUVs relative to cars (high ground clearance and a long hood with a shallow slope).
Of course, it's inevitable that SOME people will have needs and wants that happen to perfectly suit a BMW or a CUV. You've evidently done quite a thorough job deciding on your MDX, and you seem to still feel it's the right vehicle for your use. A friend of mine bought a BMW 128i because nothing else on the market works better for him. I once met someone for whom a Mercury Mariner was literally the only small-ish vehicle in which he could fit comfortably. Still, when I ask the vast majority of BMW or SUV/CUV owners why they bought their cars over wagons or minivans, they are happy to acknowledge that other vehicles might have done the job better, but what they really wanted was a high seating position and/or not to feel like XYZ kind of person.
If we're making an argument against sedans based purely on utility, then why buy a CUV when you can buy a minivan which offers more passenger space and more utility space when you remove/hide the seats?
A Grand Caravan with stow 'n go seats can be had for about $20k. It has plenty of go and drives as nice as the average CUV.
A Grand Caravan with stow 'n go seats can be had for about $20k. It has plenty of go and drives as nice as the average CUV.
- Status
