Of course, there's the most important factor of all - the "uncool" or "I don't want to look like a boring parent" factor.

I sit here, staring down the barrel of a gun myself. There is no alternative, once we have another kid our choice is made. Many will say that a three row SUV is a replacement, but it just isn't. The third row on all but the largest is ridiculous, and there generally isn't any room behind it until one gets a "full size" suv. If you travel any distance for family, that is a recipe for disaster, and anyone with three or four kids and looking at $4 gas will tell you a larger SUV isn't an option.
 
Automakers, you have a limited amount of time to release that A-team tribute van, begin work at once. Ah... who knows, in a few years maybe crossovers will have a better space/value proposition. Maybe a six door Camry will surface. At some point, GM needs to put a vehicle in the Minivan market it left a few years ago, and they have a chance to do something different as they'd be starting from scratch.

It seemed odd to me when GM left that segment. The last set of Chevy/Saturn/Buick vans were decent enough, only lacked a couple of key features ("magic" third row, and side curtain airbags). However the Lambdas seem to be doing well, so I guess they haven't lost anything. And I understand they don't want a lot of reducndant offerings going after the same buyers, but it still seems odd that the world's biggest automaker doesn't even have a contestant in this most practical of family transportation categories.
 
Ford dropping the Windstar was perhaps a worse move, as they haven't replaced it with a successful three-row crossover. Maybe the Flex will be a hit, but it'll be what, five years between the end of the Freestar and the beginning of the Flex? GM didn't have such a long gap between their minivans and the Lambdas. And that Freestar seemed to be a pretty decent seller despite its continual poor performance in virtually every comparison test I've ever read. Maybe the dropped it out of shame.

Don't laugh, and I KNOW this is a minority view, but the BEST CUV ever was the Buick Rendezvous. Take off your car testing hat, forget cool for a moment and consider: there was a vehicle with the footprint and maneuverability of a Camry, with the ability to carry 7 adults [yes - a real 3rd row seat] OR 108 cubic feet of cargo [that's six Camry trunks], all while averaging over 20 mpg [I got 30+ on the road]. SUV - like ground clearance, ABS and traction control allowed even a FWD RDV to handle a foot of snow easily. Nice high SUV seating. And, you could get a nice one for $30K [much less with the usual deals]. So, now, it's been replaced by the Enclave, a longer, wider heavier and thirstier [albeit much prettier] CUV. Now, if the money spent to develop the Lambdas had been used to improve the Rondy, GM would still have me for a customer. PS - The Flex is too bulky for what it does.

I actually like the Rendevouz as well. I found it powerful, pleasant to drive and look at, and it was a pretty good hauler. I'd rather have that then many of the new CUVs around.

What if you don't live in LA? What if perhaps say you lived in the mountains where you get significant amounts of the white stuff? How would the FWD-only winner, the Odyssey, have fared then?

Didn't we already debate this?

I'm sorry, Karl, but I simply can't see Inside Line's test as valid unless there's a wagon involved. I own a wagon and I tell you, it inches out ahead of the minivan. Greater cool factor, slightly better fuel economy, unquestionable handling and car-like characteristics. The list goes on. Wagons are great and I think that there are a lot of great sedans out there that'd make far better wagons. It's a waste of a lot of good platforms.

True Karl. The minivan is by far the best vehicle if you have kids or to take the family on a trip. But, you will always hear the excuses like is not cool, no 4WD, no high towing capacity, no V8, no sport suspension, won't tow my boat, can't carry my bikes, i don't live in the city, can't take big bubba and buddies and more.

Ground clearance isn't worth much on flat pavement in reasonable condition.
 
But having to pick your way around every rut and hole on marginal roads to not scrape or bottom out gets old fast.

Buick Rendezvous best CUV? Sorry, I do have to laugh. Isn't the Rendezvous just a rebadged/cleaned up Pontiac Aztek? I had a rental one before and found it pretty cheap inside. I wouldn't pay 30k for that or even 25. And Tiger Woods driving one won't change my mind.
 
I do think it looks like a more angular Astro van. Why not reintroduce that vehicle? People even love them in Japan.

02speedtriple: You don't hear plans about the Astra coming back, probably because it was a mechanical nightmare.

7Driver, Toyota does make the Sienna in 4wd, if your question is sincere. I hear you, I live in a snowy climate with dirt roads and the whole deal. But if you take a good look around, everyone here doesn't drive a 4wd suv. People who deal with drifts of snow everyday get by with front wheel drive minivans, and in very large numbers. I have a Highlander and a Civic, so I know the virtues of an SUV, but in a few years I'm sure I'll have a minivan, and it won't be as big a deal as you make it out to be.
 
Astro van! Somehow missed on worst vehicles of the 20th century list.

Isn't this several weeks out of date? Wasn't there already a massive argument about the nature of the test and how the final decision was all but reached before the test was run? How it says exactly what Karl et al. say constantly?

Yes, but now the story is actually live and you can see the hard numbers that go with the common sense most of us already had.
 
As for requiring 4WD/AWD in a snowy climate, I've never bought it. I grew up in Denver driving rear-drive, V8-powered muscle cars whose only integrated circuits were in the radio (I think there was one in there...).
 
I had all-season BFGoodrich radial T/As and if there was one day a year when my cars couldn't handle the weather conditions it was a lot. In other words, most winters it wasn't an issue at all, but maybe one day every two-to-three years the snow was bad enough to force me to stay home. On those days, the whole city shut down and everyone stayed home, so it really wasn't an issue even those days.
 
Use good tires, use your brain, and you'd be surprised how far a non-4WD/AWD vehicle can take you. Car have been around for over a century but 4WD/AWD has only gone mainstream in the last 10-20 years. Cars and people moved around somehow during the other 8 decades.

I want a six-door CR-V that gets 25 mpg or better. Still want AWD (easy to do) but will give up any ideas of going off road.
 
I still think the Eurovan is a great van somewhere between mini- and full-. HUGE inside, space behind the 4rd row seat and if the powers-that-be would start bringing them here again but with a TDI we'd get 30mpg! Yeah, I'd put up with a van that wouldn't be worth a darn on a drag strip easily. Just give me a 6 speed manual tranny.
 
I also like the diesel Sprinter vans but have not seen a passenger version that I liked. Looks too much like airport busses. VBG!
 
Seriously I wonder how long until somebody builds a low compact car with six doors. Would have a good drag coefficient (wind tunnel) and still be roomy in wagon form (lay down all those seats and carry 2x4s inside). Yes, parking might be difficult in some situations but I wouldn't care.

I've gone old school with my family truckster...a 1991 Olds Custom Cruiser complete with rear facing seat. Mid 20s mpg on the hwy and plenty of performance add-ons available. I drive the Passat around town and save the Olds for the road trips.

I am still amazed, growing up in the 70s and early 80s, how we ever survived in a 2-child household, making 3K mile trips without a minivan, SUV, or CUV. Oh, that's right, it was called a WAGON!

Yeah, well the world got along fine for decades with just trucks and SUV's and no minivans too, Karl. :-)

This is off topic.
 
Edmunds needs to do a comparison this summer of the GT-R and the new ZR1 pretty please!!! According to that article in Edmunds the ZR1 is about to set the production record at the Nürburgring.
1:40s on damp pavement is blistering fast. That cars going to have ferrari's in its rearview mirror.
 
That would be the ultimate comparison in my book.

02speed, the Rendezvous was the Aztek done right. Optioned models were not cheap inside. As I said, if GM had used some of those Lambda development $$ to improve it.....And Karl, see, the winning Honda Odyssey - well, it's a little pricey and TOO BIG outside. Not such great MPG, as a daily driver, which my Rondy was, either. Another also -gone alternative was the short-wheelbase MOPAR van - same size as the RDV, available with 3 rows - pretty good on gas - but NO extra ground clearance - which comes in handy when it snows, no? Anyway, Karl, the choice of 3 price-is-no-object gas hogs for this comparo seems out of synch with $4.00 gas.

The comparison article didn't contain any huge surprises. If one can remove ego from the car-buying equation (and that's a very big "if"), a mini-van is a very capable and flexible vehicle that can perform a wide range of tasks with more comfort and economy... so long as the tasks don't include carving corners, towing trailers, or climbing trails.
 
We bought a 2006 Toyota Sienna, and the biggest unexpected bonus was that we no longer worry about the kids dinging other cars with the rear doors, whether in a parking lot or in our own garage (which we now park two vehicles in).

chevy598,
 
Yes, we should compare the GT-R to the ZR1 to the Smart fortwo. Oh, and this test should be conducted in San Francisco during rush hour with no track time. That'll make it akin to this CUV vs SUV vs minivan test which didn't including towing or off-roading or snow.

Of course you can get by drive 2wd in the snow. I grew up in a small town in Ontario, Canada and never had a 4wd. Alway managed somehow.
 
However now that I have a Subaru and a Grand Cherokee, I can safely say the AWD/4WD is better in the snow by a HUGE margin. Not only for convienence but for safety. Slopes that I would take a run at or avoid altogether, I now just drive safely up. Parking spot that I couldn't use becasue they has too much snow and I might get stuck are no longer a problem.
 
Yes you can manage but think of all the things people insist on these days that we also grew up without.
 
I grew up without A/C or automatics. My 1st car had an AM radio, no airbag, lap belts only, bias ply tires etc.
 
No one needs nav systems, stability control, ABS, power windows/locks/ doors/seats etc,etc,etc.
 
Sure nice to have though.

firstwagon,
 
Good point. We got along fine for decades... no, centuries, no, millennia without gasoline. Does that mean we need to start eschewing cars?

7driver,
 That's a good one!!!
 
GM needs to fix that software in their 6 speeds. It's ridiculous that they make a modern transmission that fights the driver all in the sake of fuel economy. It doesn't save fuel. Drivers just punch the gas until they get the desired result.
 
I'll keep my old 4 speed until GM decides to make the 6 speed benefit the driver and not the EPA.

I hate the new sienna commericals at the beach... theres nothing even remotly attractive about a mini-van, toyota is trying too hard.

I live in the snow belt, and every winter the vast majority of cars in ditches are rwd. Small 2WD trucks like the Ranger, and the Colorado are notorious for seeking out ditches when the snow is falling. Cars like the CTS, 335, mustang, and Camaro are also real good at finding ditches when the weather is bad.
 
Rwd still has a tendancy to have the rear end break loose when the weather is bad, and it doesn't matter how much traction control technology they shove into the car.
 
I had a 2000 GT Mustang that I got rid of because there were just certain days when that car couldn't be on the road. The last straw was when I got stuck going downhill in the middle of a highway on ramp in 4 inches of snow. If the people behind me wouldn't have helped push I would have been there until the snow melted.

In Ontairo, unless you really live in the country, the actual number of days you drive on roads that are actually snow covered are very small. I'm sure it would be great to have a FWD/AWD on those 3-4 days a year, but chances are you shouldn't be driving anyways in that weather.
 
At least, thats the lesson the highway sign taught my car last Feb :)

"We bought a 2006 Toyota Sienna, and the biggest unexpected bonus was that we no longer worry about the kids dinging other cars with the rear doors, whether in a parking lot or in our own garage (which we now park two vehicles in)."
 
Dings--a major peeve of mine...If you ever worried about dinging other cars (you or your kids), then I hope you tried to park away from other vehicles. I hate having to worry about getting one so I park away from other folks. But I'll always find some idiot that will pull in beside me when they can clearly see open spots much closer to the store entrance, etc. Do they think I'm just looking for exercise and they want to join me?
 
"I live in the snow belt, and every winter the vast majority of cars in ditches are rwd."
When I lived in CT, the folks I saw in ditches were those that thought their 4wd made them invincible and hauled a$$ over the snow covered highway. Then again, I could only tell if they were 4wd if they were flipped over.

2wd pickups are like sugar to ditches. Then there are the people who put snow tires on their rwd sedans, and try to outdrive traffic, who have problems here. I'd say less than 1/5 of cars in the ditches around here are normal fwd sedans even though they are the majority of cars on the road. Having a front wheel drive CUV or minivan in a foot of snow, well, there are many who are worse off than you.
 
I spent the first 28 years of my life without a suv here. One one hand, I never let the weather keep me from going anywhere. On the other hand, I need all my fingers to count the number of ice scrapers I've broken digging myself out of whatever stopped me.
 
Oh, yep, there are always those with a 4wd flipped or stuck or whatever. That's a simple case of perception being different than reality. It doesn't mean they aren't better in snow, just not as much better as their owners think. Same as the guy in the bmw with snow tires. They help, but not enough to belong in the left lane passing everyone.

Has there been a blog where we're asked to name the ugliest cars? (I If not how about one?)....Sorry Doug, but the Rendezvous would be pretty high on my list.

A rental Chevy Astro Van took me and 5 other family members from Philadelphia through Chicago, S.Dakota, Wyoming, and Montana to Seattle down I-5 to LA, Vegas, the Grand Canyon, through the Rockies and back to Philly. All with a body on frame chassis and a 4.3L 195hp V6.
 
If I didn't want a CTS so bad, I was considering getting a minivan just to be different. 30 year old single person with a minivan? That'd be pretty hot. Unfortunately my parking spot behind the house is pretty small so that might not work.

My co-worker has a Rendevous and loves it. She traded in an Isuzu Tropper so the jump in refinement was huge. She actually appreciates all of the features such as the driver information center, OnStar, etc. Her dream vehicles are the H3 and Infiniti QX56 but gas prices got here into a slightly used Buick and she's loved it ever since. She claims it has more cargo room than the Trooper as she was able to fit all of her daughter's dorm crap in with the seats out of the way.

SUVs = the auto equivalent of a comb-over and gold chain. "I'm milddle-aged, have kids, need space but I want people to believe I'm hip and cool, so I won't opt for the car-based wagon or the minivan. I'll get something tall, with a tough name, that sounds like I'm riding shotgun with Lewis and Clark."
 
The SUV people aren't fooling anyone. We can see the kids, just as easily as we spy your scalp! *
 
This is directed at the 99% that purchase an SUV/CUV to floss, not to use it for towing 10,000 lbs of equipment.

^^ LOL agree.
 
I had to hire a minivan lasy year for a week to haul some visiting relatives around SoCal for a week. Ended up with a scruffy, base, last model, short wheel base Caravan. I actually enjoyed driving round in that van. Was good on the freeway, not bad on gas, easy to drive and park. I'd get a van over a SUV if I needed that kind of carrying capacity

^^LOL agree in spades.
 
It's gotten to the point that as soon as I hear, "what about driving in the snow" or "what about hauling a trailer" I realize what they're really saying
 
"Please don't make me admit that I should be owning a mommyvan!"
 
And suddenly that one time a year pulling a trailer to the dump for spring cleaning has turned into weekly trips with much-expensive boats on the back . . . . . and a twice a year eight inch snowfall has suddenly turned into what shut down the Donner Party.
 
Face it folks, if you gotta haul people and goods, you should be driving a mommy van.

Right on, chavis, and let me tell you about the time I put 6 grownups and 10 duffels in my Rendezvous for a trip from North Jersey to Ithaca, N.Y. Everyone swore they were comfy and we got 26MPG despite all the hills. Now, an Odyssey could do that, too, but it's a lot bigger 'n' thirstier for daily driving. What GM should do is develop a new multipurpose vehicle of similar size with more power, more MPG [the Enclave powertrain?].

I don't haul people but I do haul goods = Reg Cab Longbed pickup. I am amazed at what 98in long and sky high(within reason) can fit.
  
I've got to defend 2wd trucks for a minute here. Small pickups that I have driven seem to have horrible traction in the snow but my long wheelbase seems to provide much more. Add GY triple treads to the mix and my pickup did well last season in Mammoth Lakes and Mt. Charleston. No ditches for me even with a 6MT.

blueguy,
 
Nice. Sadly, it's often true in coastal-urban California. But the comparison test itself was about the vehicles, not their typical misinformed drivers. For those with 3 kids and a Bayliner who lives near the high desert (about 1 out of every 3 households in my old neighborhood it seemed), this test is laughable.

Too bad we can't go back in time and redo this comparision as a minivan/CUV/wagon comparision.
 
All we've done here is show a minivan makes a better minivan then an SUV. Who cares, we all know that. Why didn't you including a test of towing a 3500 lb trailer? Everyone says minivans are good for small loads. OK, lets see how good they are. Do they tow 3500lbs as good as an SUV or do they grunt and wallow all over the road.
 
Next we could do a test of an Accord vs the M3. Both are used primarly for commuteing so lets see which one is the better commuter car. We all know the M3 is the automotive equivalent of a comb-over and gold chain so we won't do any track testing and will really concentrate on it's faults. I predict the Accord will win.
 
I like minivans and was hoping for a good test to see if the latest CUV's are good enough people movers to replace the minivan.
 
Instead we have yet another round of "lets bash the SUV owners because their choice in transportation doesn't agree with ours".

Come on, Firstwagon! Come on.
 
"All we've done here is show a minivan makes a better minivan then an SUV."
Yes, because the overwhelming majority of SUV owners use them as minivans! So it makes no sense to compare them in another function. It's a proven fact: most SUV owners are buying them because they want a car to haul people and stuff but don't want to be considered soccer moms.
If most SUV owners were using their vehicles primarily for towing, I'm pretty sure Karl wouldn't have included an Odyssey, or even that GMC vehicle. So your mention of towing is irrelevant.
 
And what SUV bashing are you talking about? I don't see any.
 
The point of this article is that most SUV owners would be better served by a minivan. Whether they should buy SUVs or minivans is a different story.

"SUVs = the auto equivalent of a comb-over and gold chain. "
 
Now that's funny.
 
Not sure if it's true. Based on casual observation, I see more women driving SUVs than men, here in the Dallas area. Anyone have real statistics on % of SUV/CUV drivers by gender?

""SUVs = the auto equivalent of a comb-over and gold chain. "
  
Now that's funny.
  
Not sure if it's true. Based on casual observation, I see more women driving SUVs than men, here in the Dallas area."
 
Good point. Maybe we should say that SUVs are the auto equivalent of cosmetic surgery. "It's great that you are 50 and your face is wrinkle free, but having the exact same expression plastered on your mug 24/7 makes it clear what's really going on here."

"I grew up in Denver driving rear-drive, V8-powered muscle cars"
 
Keep in mind that muscle cars of that period (not calling you old ;-P) had much narrower tires than cars of today. It's much easier to get traction on an icy road with a 3300 lb sports coupe (Chevelle SS) with narrow tires than a new Mustang with 235mm-wide rear tires. I imagine it would be an exhaustive experience to drive your GT down a snowy highway. Also, not to be rude, but Denver doesn't get that much snow and they have more than enough snow plows to compensate for the 30" of snow they get per year.

It's a good point. That's another reason why I'm not a fan of the 20-inch tall, 10-inch wide "dubs" people insist on using to wreck their vehicles' driving dynamics.
 
As for Denver, it's not as COLD all year round as some other parts of the country (gotta love those clear skies, even in winter), but when it snows it snows hard. I know we got 34-inches in ONE snowfall back in 1983. Try living there a couple years and then tell me that snowy roads aren't really an issue in that city.

I like to comb over comment...I've got a Explorer and a receding hairline, I just choose to go with the short hair and try not to get sunburn on my scalp.
  
I understand a lot of the comments about SUV's (it only snows X times per year, minivan's get better gas mileage, etc.), but here is my question: I won't give up the curb high ground clearance (frequent heavy rains in Houston make it a necessity for my peace of mind) or a third row, so what are my options?
  
I'm willing to jump to something with a step change in gas mileage (at least +30%), but what is honestly available? The Explorer averages about 18 combined, which is on par with the Edmunds long term Kia Sedona (though I can't attest to knowing if driving conditions are similar). So until I see a minivan or CUV ith enough clearance to make it through curb high water and get 26 combined mpg, I'll live with my Explorer.
 
What I would love to see is a Lambda platform with a 3L diesel.

just to throw something in on the whole AWD vs. 2WD debate. I got a legacy because the AWD is convienient. I used to have a saturn with A 5spd manual and TC and I could usually get around in most weather but it was usually quite challenging. Just having to chain up once or twice make the AWD worth it's money. The funny thing is a 4 cyl accord or camry was about the same price as my legacy, they get the same mpg, and I was able to get a wagon (not available on the other two). I really wanted an SUV but I'm happy each day I stop for gas or have to zip up and down a mountain road that I chose the legacy.

I personally have nothing against either an SUV or a Mini-Van, each has it's merit. When it comes to winter my min-van has snow tires with studs (should be mandatory) and it gets around pretty well but can't hold a candle to my SUV. I've heard the arguments here about winter/snow driving but we had (and the winter isn't over) 300 cm+ (9ft+) of snow, each storm dropping on average 30-40cm of snow. A SUV/4WD is safer and gives you a greater piece of mind than a mini-van in those conditions and those conditions can last from November until April/May all be it the snow doesn't last late in the season. You can go to work with just flurries and in 2-3 hours the roads are treacherous. Even after the storm the roads can be plowed but still be snow-packed and icey. With all that said you can easily survive in a min-van here but 4WD and the commanding view of the road the SUV gives you is a great benefit.
 
P.S. All-Season tires should be banned from winter driving, you wouldn't venture out in a snow storm in your shoes, all Season tires is the equivalent, invest in some snow tires.

Unless one can afford multiple cars for multiple tasks, something that's fun to drive but practical seems best bang for buck. Crossovers like Forester, CRV, RAV4 and others do this well - for its 8.9" ground clearance, the '09 Forester stays surprisingly flat in corners. Hopefully Detroit will do better job with their Xovers in coming years.

"All-Season tires should be banned from winter driving, you wouldn't venture out in a snow storm in your shoes, all Season tires is the equivalent, invest in some snow tires"
 
Trouble with saying that is "all seasons tires" covers a huge range of tires.
 
Skinny low buck all seasons are great in the snow on front drive cars. I've also seen all seasons that were nothing more then performance tires with a few extra grooves added... and they sucked in the snow.