Edmunds CarPool

Karl,
  
Spot on. One thing, however. Auto companies incorporate needless capability into vehicles as a selling technique with no real rational expectation that capability will ever be used.
  
I am impressed that a Porsche SUV can cross a raging stream in the Colorado Rockies and the Range Rover can crash through underbrush on the deer lease, but really, besides showing off for the journalists, how much capability must auto companies inbred into their SUV's?
  
I 100% agree however, that if you want it and can afford it, go for it.

100% agreement.
 
But I'll add this, its much easier to get a car you 'want', then to get a car you 'need'
 
i'm looking for my next car and honestly i'm struggling. Without a family, my 'need' would be any smaller coupe/sedan., but my wants, and budget always colide, esspically since I like cars. I'd want a 'fast/er' car then the 110hp sunfire I have. But day after day, I add cars to the list i'd like/want, then kill some based on costs, etc.
 
ughh, I need help.

I agree with all too.
 
One thing I might add ties back to a comment from a few days ago (by Karl - I think) about having a different liscense for cars above a certain HP or maybe power to weight ratio. Maybe there could be some additional regulation that would mean a different liscense for vehicles over 4,500 or 5,000 lbs? This might make some people that just buy based on "because I want it" think twice.
 
I also think that there should be some sort of liscense class for the people who tow huge trailers and boats. Have you ever thought about what's rolling down the road at 70MPH when you see someone driving a 3500 series pickup towing a gigantic 5th wheel trailer.
 
While we're at it.......mandate annual driver testing after a certain age - 65 or 70?
 
I know this means more government intervention and red tape etc....but I think it might be a good idea and necessary.
 
Let it be known.....I am saying all this despite being a solid, free market, small government, conservative.

Karl,
 
I couldn't agree with you more and thanks for the sensible post. "Nobody needs a Ford GT!" was funny.
 
My wife and I both drive sedans and we have a 2 yr old. The only reason I am thinking of trading in one of the sedans for an SUV (Acadia, Pilot etc.) is for safety of my kid. The rollover issue is there in an SUV but then height, weight and crash zone are all more than what I find in my sedan. I am not sure if this falls under the need or the want category.

Karl, I totally agree with your criteria, but I have one more to add; Convenience.
 
My wife and I use her Murano an average of once a month to carry things that would not fit in a sedan. (that's an average based on many trips in some months when we're doing house projects, and long stretches with rare use). Part of the appeal of getting the SUV was being able to just drive our car to the hardware store at our convenience, buy twelve 3' x 5' sheets of cement board, and drive home.
 
Yes, the home depot rents trucks, but have you ever tried to get one of those trucks on the weekend!? You can easily wait half the day.
 
Sure we could get buy with just a sedan, but the convenience of the SUV is worth it to us.

"And at this point I have to add what really kills me is when these same folks, sitting in the cabin of their 6,000-pound SUVs/Crossovers/full-size trucks that they don't really need"
 
Interesting comment, Karl. I test drove a GTI the other day, and found myself comparing it to the Ford Explorer Sport that my mother used to drive (She now has an A4.). Both had two doors. Both had a hatchback. The funny thing was that the GTI actually had more belts in the back seat, making it an honest five seater. It also handled better, was quicker, and was more economical. I started wondering why more people weren't waking up to the fact that small cars are just as useful (and more fun) in most circumstances as huge SUV's. I was talking to a few of my friends about this issue, and one of them said "Yeah, but I'd never drive a hatchback." It's like people don't know that crossovers are just tall hatchbacks...Oh well.

It's good advice, to consider the total cost of ownership. Put that info in every review if you wish - gas mileage, insurance rates, depreciation, etc. But moral judgements are a little outside the scope of this publication. I'll go to church when I want preaching. Y'all just review the vehicles for what they are supposed to do, and we'll decide what we want, mmkay.

Karl, agree with your points. It all boils down to "car education". We can list many scenarios but you will have those that follow a trend or they were raise that way. "Do I need a Porsche 911 GT3?" Nobody needs one but I want one, but I can't afforded it right now.

Karl, excellent suggestion, and yes it's good to have choices. Unfortunately, the rental car agencies, and even less for car dealers, don't always have alternatives for those "5%" conditions (trying to find a Subaru AWD to rent is rough, even up in the snow belts).

Spot on, Karl!
 
I disagree with you a bit on politics, but beyond that this article is makes perfect sense and I'll remember it during my next car purchase.
 
[I also believe that regulations alone cannot guarantee economic prosperity or anything else, but it is necessary in some form or the other. No society would work without some regulation. I don't see sensible regulation as tatamount to communism.]
 
Cowbell, in your case I'd say you need your Murano. So Karl covered that scenario.
 
Iskch, I think it boils down to both car education AND marketing....moreso marketing. By all indications, SUVs, crossovers, full-size pickups, luxury cars, etc are more profitable than the sedans, hatchbacks and wagons that most people really need. But car manufacturers exploit the lack of car education and convince many people via marketing to buy cars they don't need or can't really afford!

cowbellm & ahightower.
 
I think you missed Karls point.
 
Cow you are using the car at least onces a month, ie was more the karls 3-4 times a year cut off. Thats fairly regularly.
I think karls point was that why get something that gets 8mpg, when you are going to use it 3 times a year?
 
tower, I dont think karl was preching. Car reviews in general point out alot of faults, alot of them saying things like 'it would be better if there was "MORE" of something".
 
When in reality, do you really need 'more' of something.
 
I think it works well if you car comparing extremes, more so then similar cars. If for example, you dont have a family, and dont regularly haul items, Then do you need say a tahoe vs a mini? Because of that one ski trip you take a year? Where the car gets used 250 days out of the year for just transporting you alone? (I gave 100 days for weekends where it might be 2 people).
 
yet alot of times people buy cars/trucks on image... Oh I like boating, maybe one day i'll have a boat, so today i'll buy this huge truck just in case.

The reality is few people need anything more then a Honda Fit. The vast majority of families I know these days only have 1 or 2 chidren and you can always get a roof pod if you need to carry more cargo.
 
The Fit has all the performance and handling you can legally use in North America so all those 200 to 300 HP (or more) sedans are not needed.
 
Perhaps Honda can make a stretched version of the Fit with a 3rd row for families with more kids and they can cover the entire non -comercial market.

Needs are funny. My dad has a diesel excursion that he uses to tow his shows cars in a fully-enclosed trailer. He goes to about 8-10 shows per year and rarely drives the excursion when my parents are just near their home.
 
Flipside, my mom has always been a sports car person and she has a miata she adores. She drives mostly alone and only drives about 13-14 miles per day. She can go a couple weeks between fill-ups. For the two of them it's a fine runabout. They have a yin-yang car relationship.
 
My wife and I love speed and the feel of European cars but we also don't have any need for space. So the Cooper's great for my daily drive and the A3 is wonderful for picking up guests at the airport and in general taking the loads the cooper can't handle. We could get away with probably a Fit and a Civic or a GTI/Rabbit pretty easily. Still, I'd assume we're on the lower end of the spectrum for gas consumption v. needs.

"Perhaps Honda can make a stretched version of the Fit with a 3rd row for families with more kids and they can cover the entire non -comercial market."
 
It's called the Mazda5
 
I drive a mazda3 5 door and a '07 Chevy Express cargo van. If you really need to haul some goods, nothing beats a cargo van, period. I've made plenty of money just picking up Home Depot items for friends so it's working out pretty well. Now obviously I can only carry one additional passenger in the van but that's fine for the most part as most jobs only require two men. Not to mention it has better brake feel than my Mazda and rides as smooth as silk.

Well the truth is people dont really need a whole lot of things, but we buy them anyway either because we can afford to do so, or because we want to show it off and have fun. Its not just cars, people buy fancy computers, cell phones and home electronics because they can afford to do so and it provides them with enjoyment.
 
I just hate it though when people try to force others to think their way. Like when some editors on Inside Line complain about the Silverado and Tahoe being to big - of course they are! Dont buy one if you dont like it or cant appreciate its abilities.

The entry fee into the suburban carpool club is a minivan or 3-row SUV. Especially with kids discouraged from sitting in the front seat. I'm hauling 5 kids to and fro nearly every other weekend, or taking road trips with a large dog carrier and three others several times a year. Guess what - I've got a minivan. The downside is that when the significant other drives it, it invariably gets wrapped around a parking-lot pole. Which makes me glad that there's a 2-row SUV for local kid- and dog hauling duties.
 
I used to have a Miata, but, having 2 kids and the aforementioned carpool responsibilities, it morphed into a minivan.
 
The idea of renting a car for special needs is really quite sound and economical. However, as someone else pointed out Convenience is an important consideration. When people change vehicles they are thus inclined to go for the most capable vehicle for their theoretical maximum need, be it for luxury or size. I drive a nice sedan, and can't help but think that for my daily commute I could just as well be driving a Fit.

If there were more sedan-based wagons, I'd be inclined to get one of those over an SUV. Unfortunately, wagons are few and far between. In fact, most of the wagons out there are European, and way out of my price range. I drive an Altima currently but my nuclear family has grown to include three not-small dogs in the past year, so it's not the best vehicle for hauling all of us around. We need to use my vehicle for long-distance trips (as in over 1,000 miles at a time) often including said animals, so the vehicle also needs to be good on the highway. What are my choices when it comes to sedan-based wagons? The Mazda6 wagon, Magnum, and Legacy wagon have been killed off, thus leaving: Audi A3, A4, A6; BMW 3-series, 5-series; Volkswagen Passat; Subaru Outback, Forester, Impreza; Ford Taurus X; Kia Rio; Kia Spectra; Mazda3; Mercedes Benz E-class; Saab 9-3, 9-5; Suzuki Forenza, SX4; Toyota Matrix/Pontiac Vibe; Volvo V50, V70.
 
Let's discount all those out of my price range, which is over 25 grand. And get rid of the compact wagons, as they're too small for my hauling needs and for me as a driver or passenger. What does that leave? The Subaru Outback. That's it. And I'm not going to buy an Outback because 1) Subaru dealers are rare in my area, thus keeping prices high, 2) the Outback is saddled with a four-speed automatic transmission [which is a must since the wife and rest of the family can't drive a stick], 3) I can get a more capable and/or more comfortable vehicle by moving to an SUV or CUV.

No one makes wagons anymore, because a small car based SUV offers many advantages, and few disadvantages. A CRV is basically a wagon based on the civic platform. It has all the mileage you'd expect, and while it looses a bit of the handling that a traditional wagon would have, it has a bit more space. This phenomonon is not unique to Honda. While a RAV4 looks like an SUV, it's mileage will rival those of the european wagons, and has more space and an optional third row. The Highlander gets better mileage than a Sienna. Car based SUV's get a bad rap, even around here.
 
I was at an auto show last weekend, and it was funny to see all the Accords, Malibus and the Mazda 6 were all the I4 versions. Three Accords, no V6. I'm sure just to have the mileage number on the window sticker. But I'm sure if I head to a dealer, the majority of the cars on the lot would have the larger engine, and if I spoke to a salesman that's the direction he would steer me. If more automakers would put effort into their smaller engines (to have refinement to the V6 level, and a decent transmission) perhaps more people would buy closer to "need" than "want".

That's one of the points I was trying to get at, bepperb: wagons have been replaced by CUVs. When you search for "Wagons" using Edmunds' tools you find only the vehicles I listed, not any of the small suvs or cuvs like the Rav4 and CR-V. The wife actually has a first-generation CR-V and, while I can fit in it just fine as a front-seat passenger, I can't drive the damned thing. The new ones aren't any better for me. I liked the Rav4, but if I'm going to get one of those, I'm going to step up to the V6, period. No sense being stuck with a crappy transmission and weak engine when the only trade-off for going with the better powertrain is the initial cost. But my experience with Toyota dealers has been...less than excellent. They know that people want to buy Toyotas no matter what, so they could care less that I actually know what I want and how much I should be able to get it for. (I hate the car-buying process with such a passion.)
 
As for the Scions, well, I liked the first-generation xB, but the new one? No thanks. The xD isn't unattractive, but it's still too small for me. I need my vehicle to be as close to perfectly comfortable as possible given how much I drive.
 
Another important fact I forgot to mention: the vehicle must have either a telescoping steering wheel or power-adjustable pedals. My wife and I are ten inches different in height (I'm 6'2'' and she's 5'4"), and without an adjustable steering wheel or pedals the vehicle is uncomfortable and simply dangerous for at least one of us, often both. (One reason I can't drive her CR-V.)
 
What I'd really like is an Altima or new Mazda6 wagon.

The Fit, Yaris, and Aveo are bad choices for a main Transportation if you have to commute long distances to work and live in a Snow Belt state. Some employers are very intolerant to workers being late or no showing. Large and mid size fwd sedans perform decent, but small ones don’t handle very well in fresh snow.
I have a 42 mile commute to work. I travel 40 miles on the highway and 2 miles on back roads. Those 2 miles of back roads are the last thing in the state of Michigan that gets plowed. 5 inches of snow on a rode without being plowed will stop a small car dead in its tracks. We have 10 to 15 days a year that we get snow like that, and those are the days that I take the Impala instead of the Sunfire. Yes, I have been stuck in the middle of an unplowed road before.

I have just slightly more than I need with an '06 Ridgeline purchased Aug '06. Grant it, that sucker has less than 12k miles on it. My wife and I have just this one 4 wheeled vehicle for our family of 3. We consider it our minivan with a truck bed (needed for dirtbike, furniture purchases at BabysRUs). The wifey is from Japan and wanted a Fit, but I wouldn't spend 15k on that car, or even 19k on a Civic EX, when the Fit is only 10k in Japan and the Ridge was only 25k here (and 50k in Japan, go figure).
 
I don't want to highjack the thread, but I think another question drivers need to ask themselves is: Do I really need to drive 15k+ miles every year? And even better: Do I really need to be in the office?
 
I'm in IT and lucky enough (and trusted) to work from home. Also, I live on the edge of the city and can walk to a grocery and a Target.
 
Finally, there's a discount clothing store in my lovely Midwest city that has the tagline "Where an educated consumer is our best customer". Imagine what the auto industry would be like if they operated under that assertion. Maybe they'd cut out the 3-4 vehicles under one platform thing (Fusion/Milan/MKX, etc.) and power folding rear seats!

I would argue the point that nobody needs a Ford GT. The pleasure one gets from such a vehicle pays dividends in lack of trips to the psychologist or the need for vacations. Sports cars are a great stress-reducer. Also, while they aren't the best investment, the trade-in values tend to remain high.
 
I am one of those people who bought a huge truck for the very rare instances and because I intend to be a future boat owner (25' Cobalt). But in my defense, the truck is only utilized when necessary (3,000 lbs of bricks, 26" of snow, large purchases at Home Depot, etc). I'm also the only one I know with a 3/4 ton truck. I have no problem letting others borrow it. Finally, I'm military, so I move at least once every 4 years.

Certain people only want you to have a sports car if you'll only drive it on the weekends. You can only have a truck or SUV if you'll only tow a boat with it. You must drive a Fit or Prius the rest of the time. Here in the real world, aka fly-over country, we like one vehicle that can do everything, regardless of how often we "need" its full capacity. Last time I checked, extra gas was still cheaper than extra cars.
 
The point about renting larger vehicles occasionally is well taken, that could work for many people.

Why can't one car do it all. Think "uts," the australian kind. They get fair MPG, can seat 5, are powerful, sporty, and useful.

I firmly believe that many people buy more car than they need on a regular basis because doing so speaks to their dreams. For example, some people who buy large SUVs probably have dreams of going skiing on a regular basis, or camping, or buying that boat they've been dreaming about so they'll need the towing capacity, or they'll need the cargo capacity for those home improvement projects they've been meaning (and promising) to do, or for that carpool they want to start at their kids school, or to be able to take the whole family on long trips with more space, or... I think you get the idea. The reality is that the dreams stay dreams, and the large vehicle only gets used for its avowed purposes once or twice a year, when rental is certainly a more financially viable option.
 
Going off-topic for a minute, it's the same thing with houses. People will buy a large house with dreams of throwing fabulous parties in all that space, or having large family get togethers, but then end up using only a small portion of the house on a regular basis.
 
Speaking for myself, we bought a Sienna a few years ago (the Mazda 5 was just too small) for more space on family vacations, the ability to carry visiting guests around in the same vehicle, the ability for my wife to be a driver on school field trips, and for carting around home improvement items and musical gear (I play in a band). We probably use it for these purposes maybe twice a month, so it gets used fairly regularly, but the other 90% of the time we could probably do fine with an Accord or Camry.

Twice a month is still 12 times a year. Plenty to justify a solid minivan that gets decent mileage anyway.
 
I haven't seen any description that sounds like people have vehicles they don't need. That includes you estreka -- owning a vehicle that is more capable than you need isn't a big deal, but owning AND DRIVING it everday when you rarely use its full (or even half) its abilities is what seems silly to me -- if just for the money wasted in gas (though I'm not ready to outlaw this behavior at all).
 
If people want a small CUV versus a true wagon to haul their stuff (including four-legged family members) that's fine. All of those vehicles (sedan-based wagons and small SUVs/CUVs) get about the same mileage. Again, it's the V8, 6,000-pound, 10,000-pound tow-capable vehicles that are driven by single people in warm climates who never tow or haul anything that I question -- especially if they make ANY play at being "earth conscious."
 
BTW, the GT is definitely a great psycho-therapy substitute. Plus, at roughly 5,000 miles a year and 16 mpg it's buring as many non-renewable resources as someone driving 10,000 miles at year in a 32 mpg vehicle. Most people driving 10,000-plus miles a year probably aren't gettnig that kind of mileage, so, relatively speaking, it's not the earth-slayer it might first seem.

This is a thought-provoking article. At this point, I'm debating between buying a lightly-used small sedan that gets respectable mileage (i.e., around 25 mph in the city), or buying a new Prius. However, when I look at the true-cost-to-own, the Prius is about $4500 more then a small sedan. True, it gets great mileage, but does a car run by gas alone? I'd like more choices in terms of hatchbacks and sedan-based wagons, but alas, there isn't much under $20,000 that gets good mph. Why can't the car manuacturers make a utilitarian car or non-hybrid SUV that gets around 30 mph in the city--is that so tough?

This discussion made me look up one of my favorites- the Mazda6 wagon. I went to mazdausa.com and what?.....no wagon! So it's either the Passat wagon (ok, nice looking) or Audi (no shame there!) but the selections are few. I wish Honda would bring the great looking TSX wagon to the USA.
 
Although I can appreciate them on their own merits, I will never buy a "crossover suv". The birth of this segment is completely silly. "I want to look like an suv, with none of the capability or characteristics of one."
I can't help to think that in every case, a sedan (or wagon) can do the job better in every case. To me, they are tall sedans with bad gas mileage. There is no purpose for the height other than style. It does not add capability. In fact, it goes against the concept of unibody design. I just feel it's poser to the core.
A body on frame suv or truck is shaped that way for a reason. A functional reason.
 
I am all for the body-on-frame suv's and trucks. There are good reasons for one, developed basically since the birth of cars. They are the practical choice, and only choice for serious day-in day-out duty. Offroad capability, towing, heavy loads, and doing this repeatedly without complaint, "toughness" and durability.
 
one can argue capacity.. (although I believe a minivan has far more capacity than any body on frame suv. The far better choice for the soccer mom circuit). I think the Mazda5 is a great design- sporty looks and smaller. Why they saddled it w/ the tiny engine, I don't know.
 
How about a diesel Passat, A3, A4 wagon (sorry the new Jetta is just so butt ugly, I have to pass. I can't even give it a sympathy vote).
Sad about the Mazda6 wagon...

Carol30,
 
It's very tough for a vehicle to get 30 mpg in the City without being a hybrid. It has to do with how much time the engine is idling at stop signs and traffic lights, and how much energy is being wasted through braking.
 
It sounds like you're wishing for something like a Scion xB, but the mileage for that car is still only 22/28. Even the non-hybrid Honda Civic with the auto tranny gets only 25 mpg in the city (combined rating of 25/34), so it would be very difficult for a larger, less aerodynamic vehicle to get 30 mpg in the same situation.

I've been following the used Jetta TDI article with a lot of interest. I know that vehicle will regularly hit over 30mpg and a MINI COOPER is darn close at 28mpg (in the real world, could be 30+mpg depending on your driving style)

Cruiserhead,
 
Thanks for reminding me about diesels. Hopefully there will be at least a modest resurgence in diesels with the new 50-state emission systems they've come up with. A diesel Jetta wagon might be what Carol30 is looking for.
 
I haven't tried a Jetta wagon in a while, but the last time I rode in one (back in 2005) both the shotgun seat and the rear seat seemed too cramped for me to be comfortable (I'm 6'1" and have a little extra poundage). My 2003 Honda Civic sedan, in contrast, has plenty of room (except for rear seat headroom) and works fine for extended trips.

How many people participate is a vehicle mass arms race? I don't feel safe driving less than a 3000 lb. car on highways full of light trucks. My current car is a 3200 lb. Honda Accord, but my next vehicle will probably be a 3500 lb. "uparmored" near-luxury sedan with side impact air bags. I tend to oppose additional government regulation, but I would consider putting a maximum weight limit on the vehicle one can drive with a regular Class C drivers license.

Hmmm, I've had my SRT-4 since I bought it almost exactly five years ago new. I've had passengers in the back seat less than five times, so by this logic I could have definitely pulled off the S2000 I had my eye on instead.

I bought a new impala 2 years ago, and haven't used the air conditioner more than 20 times. Does this mean I over bought?

No, it means you under aircondition.
 
I hardly need it in L.A., too, but I turn it on at least once on month on my cars to keep the compressor from seizing up.

Orangutan (and others lamenting the demise of the Mazda 6 and Subaru Legacy wagons): no love for the pre-owned.
 
It's not that much more of a stretch (figuratively or financially) to move to a CPO lease-end wagon from one the BIg 3 German Marques...
 
Just a thought.

"I tend to oppose additional government regulation, but I would consider putting a maximum weight limit on the vehicle one can drive with a regular Class C drivers license."
 
Already done. Although the limit is a little scary. It's 26,000 pounds (at least in PA.)

I was looking for a mention here about the the Legacy wagon. Seeing none, I poked over the the Edmunds Legacy page, and what, No Wagon?! Just a few years ago, Subaru offered a Legacy Wagon, GT with a stick, rated at 19/25. Practical, AWD, somewhat economical, and fun. With its death, seems as though we are going the wrong way in terms of choices.

George, I drive a 2600 lbs car and feel perfectly safe on the road. Not sure why people are constantly worried about the possibility of getting hit. Do you not scuba dive because the regulator may break? Do you avoid sky diving because the chute may not open? Forget about eating beef...it may have e. coli. Chicken's got the old salmonella too. Avoid the tuna, there could be mercury. When do people stop worrying about safety and start just enjoying life?

When the government tells us to.
 
Sorry, it was too easy to pass up.

I'd like to see you try to tow something with a rented SUV. Every rental I've had has a "no-tow" clause in the contract, assuming you can even find a rental with a trailer hitch.
 
-Jason

Smart smart smart.
 
I firmly believe that most people don't need anything more than a simple sedan, and a credit card to rent a truck/suv/sports car on a once-in-a-while basis.
 
Having said that, how great is it to live in a country where you can buy whatever you want, regardless of how impractical it might be?
 
God bless America, that's what I say.

"I firmly believe that most people don't need anything more than a simple sedan, and a credit card to rent a truck/suv/sports car on a once-in-a-while basis. "
 
On this topic, I had a colourful discusion today with a co-worker who says you don't need a car at all. He bikes when possible and takes transit or cabs the rest of the time, has never owned a car at all. Once or twice a year he'll rent a car when nothing else will do.
 
Not the life for me but his points were all valid. Taking the idea of not having more then you need would mean that a lot of people should not have a car at all.
 
Anyone who thinks people should not be allowed to have SUV's should talk to my friend and see if they are able to justify whatever it is that they drive.
 
I convinced him that I needed one car but couldn't justify having the 2nd one. ( I'm keeping it anyhow, it's a free country so far)

"George, I drive a 2600 lbs car and feel perfectly safe on the road. Not sure why people are constantly worried about the possibility of getting hit. Do you not scuba dive because the regulator may break? Do you avoid sky diving because the chute may not open? Forget about eating beef...it may have e. coli. Chicken's got the old salmonella too. Avoid the tuna, there could be mercury. When do people stop worrying about safety and start just enjoying life?"
+1
 
"I'd like to see you try to tow something with a rented SUV. Every rental I've had has a "no-tow" clause in the contract, assuming you can even find a rental with a trailer hitch."
That is a good point. Does anyone have additional insight into this issue?

Nearly 90% of the time we drive alone. On average, we use a 4,000 pound vehicle to haul a 200 pound load. I'm sorry, but that's crazy. Europeans drive smaller cars and yet have full functionality. Their fleet average fuel economy is nearly twice as high as ours and their accident death rate per mile is 1/3 lower than ours.
 
We purchase a vehicle based on its ultimate use, and then use it very lightly loaded. As economists would say, our marginal rate of return on the increased investment is extremely low.
 
Many people buying an SUV are not making a rational decision. My permanent home is northern Minnesota. I bet my old minivan has been on worse roads, off road, and in worse snow conditions than 90% of SUVs will ever see, yet I've never gotten stuck, even when I've plowed through snow as high as my front bumper.
 
Eighty percent of our road miles we put on our 10 year old stick-shift Neon, which gets 30 mpg in town and over 40 on the highway. The other 20% we put on our minivan, which is used as a pickup truck much of the time. It gets 24 mpg and will haul more stuff than any SUV.
 
I see a vehicle resembling the Tata Nano as the model for our increasingly oil short future. Light, small, efficient and low cost, two such 10' long vehicles could fit into one side of a suburban garage and provide mom and dad with their commuting needs. Two of these cars would cost as much as one compact sedan. On the other side of the garage would reside a multipurpose vehicle, which would not be a daily commuter, but would be used for those times you need to carry more people or stuff.

The USA is not Europe. Here, in America, our cities are expansive and driving is a totally different experience.
Europe does not have 18-wheelers, nor the same type of urban planning- not even close.
 
People do things out of necessity. Europeans need small cars to navigate extremely compacted urban landscapes and narrow roads that are thousands of years old. They have a completely different lifestyle.
The USA is a little over 500 years old and the closest you will get to cramped urban quarters are a few cities on the east coast.
 
Sure there are limited markets for cars like the SMART or Nano but look at them-
 
the SMART (2 person vehicle) is the same price as the Honda FIT, yet doesn't get better mpgs, is not safer, does not carry as much and no better emission standard and cannot perform as well. Less cargo, less room, less control...same or more msrp...hmm.
It's just as extreme as a soccer mom suv in the opposite end of the spectrum.
 
Good and bad, lifestyles can be modified but it takes time and needs widespread acceptance to make a difference. I believe diesels are a huge step in the right direction.

Speaking of how much do you really need, one trend I've seen in recent years, especially on domestic SUV's and trucks, is the incredible price range of a particular vehicle due to an amazing variety of options that are piled on. Many of these options are things I couldn't even dream up on my own.
 
While AWD and leather are pretty obvious, many others can take a $28,000 base vehicle with the same size, driveline, and capability, and turn it into a $40,000 retirement fund draining mistake.
 
Yet reading forums on the web, I'm amazed at just how many buyers mention they'll be getting it "loaded with every option" and consider things like factory nav "must have". That would be fine, but these are also buyers who mention things like "I can afford $500/mo" in the same posts.
 
What? You can't afford to pay cash yet you have to have heated seats and dual rear DVD players, upgraded stereo, memory seats, etc?
 
No wonder the savings rate in the US is about negative 1%.
 
Yet ironically I will hear the same posters complain fiercely about a 2-3 mpg difference in vehicles, as if the extra couple hundred bucks a year for gas is a problem.
 
Give it about a year's time, and this will all be a moot point, as the days of "EZ credit" that is cheap will be gone and people will think twice about loading them up like a baked potato. "payment buyers" will want things like actual performance and quality in lieu of frills.
 
The $5500 of options my wife insisted on on a Saab brought about $500 more in resale value 5 years later (according to Edmunds). Other than the sport pkg and wheels I could not have cared less about any of them. But at least we paid the vehicle off 2 years into a 5 year loan. If I was broke I'd sure be regretting those options like heated seats and "infotainment", whatever that is.

Myob - I completely agree. In fact, I bet since 7.1 million (and counting) former homeowners have cashed out their nest egg, vehicles will be next on the list. I forsee massive waves of vehicle defaults in the near future.

Karl is 100% correct. I was made fun of and harassed when I bought my 1997 Miata.
 
"Its so small, how are you supposed to go shopping or drive home from school" etc....
 
I have lived with this thing for 2 years now and its size is an advantage. I can park anywhere, get reasonable fuel economy, and its small size and agile handling have saved my ass loads of times.
 
The vehicle I drove before it was a 96 Rav4. Sometimes I miss the practicality but its never actually a problem. I can always rent or borrow a car with more space when I need it.