Buy the Range Rover and Get My Cayenne Deposit Back?
11-01-2002, 02:34 PM
#46
Addict
Rennlist Member
Rennlist Member
Othello,
See for my circumstance it works for me, I have a 20' Regal, true nothing but a large dually is going to pull a 45 footer. At this current time I don't have kids, that was what I was unsure about as far as loading and unloading them.
One theory I do have as far as the SUV compared to the Audi, lets say your at a signal light turns green, and you proceed ahead, car is packed with the whole family, a car, not a SUV runs the red light and plows into your side (rear drivers door) would you rather be in the Audi that is lower to the ground, and the impact is at head level of your children, or would you rather be 16-18" higher in a SUV where the point of impact maybe lower and cause less damage? PLease excuse my lack of knowledge for the Audi dimensions and safety, I'm just speculating as if it were another station wagon. Also I'm not a doctor so when I say less damage I could be wrong as well.
One thing I do like about a my current X5 is that I do feel safer in that vehcile, more so than my previous 530i. I like to see ahead of me, I try to look pass the car ahead of me, to see if there is sudden backup or anything like that, and yes its selfish of me because unfortunately the small car behind me can't see pass me, but thats why there are 2 lanes on a busy road. I know when i'm behind another SUV I usually get in the other lane to see pass them.
It all comes down to needs, and we are all entitled to them, so thats why there are a ton of options for every need.
See for my circumstance it works for me, I have a 20' Regal, true nothing but a large dually is going to pull a 45 footer. At this current time I don't have kids, that was what I was unsure about as far as loading and unloading them.
One theory I do have as far as the SUV compared to the Audi, lets say your at a signal light turns green, and you proceed ahead, car is packed with the whole family, a car, not a SUV runs the red light and plows into your side (rear drivers door) would you rather be in the Audi that is lower to the ground, and the impact is at head level of your children, or would you rather be 16-18" higher in a SUV where the point of impact maybe lower and cause less damage? PLease excuse my lack of knowledge for the Audi dimensions and safety, I'm just speculating as if it were another station wagon. Also I'm not a doctor so when I say less damage I could be wrong as well.
One thing I do like about a my current X5 is that I do feel safer in that vehcile, more so than my previous 530i. I like to see ahead of me, I try to look pass the car ahead of me, to see if there is sudden backup or anything like that, and yes its selfish of me because unfortunately the small car behind me can't see pass me, but thats why there are 2 lanes on a busy road. I know when i'm behind another SUV I usually get in the other lane to see pass them.
It all comes down to needs, and we are all entitled to them, so thats why there are a ton of options for every need.
11-01-2002, 02:53 PM
#47
Instructor
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Alpharetta, GA
Posts: 244
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
[quote]Originally posted by Kevin M.:
<strong>Othello,
See for my circumstance it works for me, I have a 20' Regal, true nothing but a large dually is going to pull a 45 footer. At this current time I don't have kids, that was what I was unsure about as far as loading and unloading them.
One theory I do have as far as the SUV compared to the Audi, lets say your at a signal light turns green, and you proceed ahead, car is packed with the whole family, a car, not a SUV runs the red light and plows into your side (rear drivers door) would you rather be in the Audi that is lower to the ground, and the impact is at head level of your children, or would you rather be 16-18" higher in a SUV where the point of impact maybe lower and cause less damage? PLease excuse my lack of knowledge for the Audi dimensions and safety, I'm just speculating as if it were another station wagon. Also I'm not a doctor so when I say less damage I could be wrong as well.
One thing I do like about a my current X5 is that I do feel safer in that vehcile, more so than my previous 530i. I like to see ahead of me, I try to look pass the car ahead of me, to see if there is sudden backup or anything like that, and yes its selfish of me because unfortunately the small car behind me can't see pass me, but thats why there are 2 lanes on a busy road. I know when i'm behind another SUV I usually get in the other lane to see pass them.
It all comes down to needs, and we are all entitled to them, so thats why there are a ton of options for every need.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Kevin
The direct answer to your question is that I'd rather be in neither car if I was facing a side-impact from an SUV.
I wouldn't want to be in an SUV because SUVs do not have to meet the same safety standards as passenger cars. The double standard exists due to arcane federal rules classifying SUVs as light trucks. Less rigid rules mean occupants of SUVs are not protected by the side-impact crash safety standards or strength requirements for bumpers required on standard passenger cars.
I would also not want to be in a car being hit by an SUV as recent studies are showing that SUVs are greatly increasing the danger on our roads for drivers and passengers in other cars. Federal information shows that although light trucks account for one-third of all registered vehicles, traffic crashes between a light truck and any other vehicle now account for the majority of fatalities in vehicle-to-vehicle collisions. Of the 5,259 fatalities caused when light trucks struck cars in 1996, 81 percent of the fatally injured were occupants of the car. In multiple-vehicle crashes, the occupants of the car are four times more likely to be killed than the occupants of the SUV. In a side-impact collision with an SUV, car occupants are 27 times more likely to die.
What I'd rather see is a reality check to the escalation of vehicle size. I cannot understand why a mom with 2 or 3 kids needs something like an Excursion or a Suburban. We have 2 kids and we get around just fine. Sure, there's that odd occasion when it would be nice to seat 7 people in the car but then again there's an occasion when we need to seat 12! Are we going to build and buy cars for that occasion?
I think crash compatibility has been forgotten about by our safety councils.
<strong>Othello,
See for my circumstance it works for me, I have a 20' Regal, true nothing but a large dually is going to pull a 45 footer. At this current time I don't have kids, that was what I was unsure about as far as loading and unloading them.
One theory I do have as far as the SUV compared to the Audi, lets say your at a signal light turns green, and you proceed ahead, car is packed with the whole family, a car, not a SUV runs the red light and plows into your side (rear drivers door) would you rather be in the Audi that is lower to the ground, and the impact is at head level of your children, or would you rather be 16-18" higher in a SUV where the point of impact maybe lower and cause less damage? PLease excuse my lack of knowledge for the Audi dimensions and safety, I'm just speculating as if it were another station wagon. Also I'm not a doctor so when I say less damage I could be wrong as well.
One thing I do like about a my current X5 is that I do feel safer in that vehcile, more so than my previous 530i. I like to see ahead of me, I try to look pass the car ahead of me, to see if there is sudden backup or anything like that, and yes its selfish of me because unfortunately the small car behind me can't see pass me, but thats why there are 2 lanes on a busy road. I know when i'm behind another SUV I usually get in the other lane to see pass them.
It all comes down to needs, and we are all entitled to them, so thats why there are a ton of options for every need.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Kevin
The direct answer to your question is that I'd rather be in neither car if I was facing a side-impact from an SUV.
I wouldn't want to be in an SUV because SUVs do not have to meet the same safety standards as passenger cars. The double standard exists due to arcane federal rules classifying SUVs as light trucks. Less rigid rules mean occupants of SUVs are not protected by the side-impact crash safety standards or strength requirements for bumpers required on standard passenger cars.
I would also not want to be in a car being hit by an SUV as recent studies are showing that SUVs are greatly increasing the danger on our roads for drivers and passengers in other cars. Federal information shows that although light trucks account for one-third of all registered vehicles, traffic crashes between a light truck and any other vehicle now account for the majority of fatalities in vehicle-to-vehicle collisions. Of the 5,259 fatalities caused when light trucks struck cars in 1996, 81 percent of the fatally injured were occupants of the car. In multiple-vehicle crashes, the occupants of the car are four times more likely to be killed than the occupants of the SUV. In a side-impact collision with an SUV, car occupants are 27 times more likely to die.
What I'd rather see is a reality check to the escalation of vehicle size. I cannot understand why a mom with 2 or 3 kids needs something like an Excursion or a Suburban. We have 2 kids and we get around just fine. Sure, there's that odd occasion when it would be nice to seat 7 people in the car but then again there's an occasion when we need to seat 12! Are we going to build and buy cars for that occasion?
I think crash compatibility has been forgotten about by our safety councils.
11-01-2002, 03:46 PM
#48
Pro
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Tucson AZ
Posts: 678
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Gee, testy, aren't we....
As a matter of course, I never stoop to insults to get my point across. If someone comes in and asks opinions and then insults those who give their opinions, in my mind that is simple bad taste.
I still insist that all are welcome to their opinions as long as they do not devolve into bad language or personal insults.
If anyone here has a problem with that line of thinking, please let me know.
Cheers, everyone......
As a matter of course, I never stoop to insults to get my point across. If someone comes in and asks opinions and then insults those who give their opinions, in my mind that is simple bad taste.
I still insist that all are welcome to their opinions as long as they do not devolve into bad language or personal insults.
If anyone here has a problem with that line of thinking, please let me know.
Cheers, everyone......
11-01-2002, 04:50 PM
#49
Race Director
[quote]
The SUV Safety Myth
(Reprint From <a href="http://poseur.4x4.org/)" target="_blank">http://poseur.4x4.org/)</a>
Most people think that the hefty weight and sheer mass of SUVs benefits their safety. This is a total myth. My point is not that SUVs are so unsafe that they should be banned, but that safety is not a reason in favor of buying an SUV. SUVs are not as safe as cars for the following reasons:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Accident Avoidance Maneuvers
Most SUVs are tall and heavy for their size. Their portly weight and a high center of gravity are not condusive to handling around obstacles or other accident avoidance manuevers. An SUV's roadholding and acceleration figures are always inferior compared to a similarly sized/engined car.
This means that the SUV is much less adept at avoiding accidents, which of course is the best means of preventing injury. Some SUV drivers have responded by claiming that it is not so much the vehicle you drive, but the abilities of the driver that truly matter for safety. This is partly true, but even the best driver can be unsafe if he doesn't have the right equipment.
For example, say Michael Jordan decided to wear dress loafers on the court instead of his usual basketball shoes. He could still play, but he would be severely handicapped in his movement. The loafers would probably cost him the game. Likewise, cars are designed solely for on-road use, while almost all SUVs are not. Cars are best designed to handle whatever problems come your way on today's crowded roads.
Roll Overs
I know everyone is tired of hearing about SUV rollovers from the mass media and consumer magazines, but the fact is that SUVs roll twice as often as cars do according to NHSTA (National Highway Safety and Traffic Association) statistics. How can a supposedly "safe" vehicle generate these numbers?
Braking Distance
Everyone knows that the most important part of a vehicle is its brakes, and almost all SUVs fall short. In panic stop situations, every foot counts. The stopping distances of these porkers are lengthened by their excessive weight and primitive brakes. The poor lemmings can't stop fast enough to avoid falling off cliffs!
Compare the braking distances from 60 mph to 0 in the following illustration. In a common accident scenario, imagine you've encountered a stopped semi truck while going around a blind curve. The semi is 142 feet in front of you. Which is the safest vehicle to be in?
Porsche Boxster: 120 feet.......................Yawn.
Oldsmobile Intrigue: 131 feet..................Arrgh.
Dodge Caravan SE: 135 feet..................Whew.
Pontiac Transport: 141 feet.....................WHEW!
Isuzu Rodeo: 148 feet.............................BANG!!
Ford Explorer: 150 feet...........................SMASH!!!
Chevrolet Blazer: 154 feet.......................SLAM!!!!
Chevrolet Suburban: 155 feet..................CRUNCH!!!!!
Kenworth Pilgrimage: ??? feet..................&*$@#%=>#:~@%*!!!!!!
Statistical Source: Edmunds Car and Truck Guide.
Accident Injuries
Taken as a whole, statistics show that cars are safer designs than SUVs. Most of the best selling SUVs still use ladder frames from pickup trucks, which are not designed to absorb collision impacts. According to the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS), "In single vehicle crashes, heavy vehicles with stiff frames (most SUVs) might actually do more to harm the vehicle's occupants because there is little give, or energy absorption engineering, to dissipate the force of running into an immovable object."
This is proven when you consider the injury ratings in these crash test charts provided by the IIHS. Notice how many cars rate in the yellow (little injury) and how many SUVs rate in the red (high injury).
According to IIHS statistics, the only time an SUV will come out ahead in an accident is if it collides with a smaller vehicle. Even then, the only advantages you get with an SUV are at the expense of those driving smaller cars, which are designed to absorb impacts. SUVs just plain don't make sense safety-wise!
<hr></blockquote>
The SUV Safety Myth
(Reprint From <a href="http://poseur.4x4.org/)" target="_blank">http://poseur.4x4.org/)</a>
Most people think that the hefty weight and sheer mass of SUVs benefits their safety. This is a total myth. My point is not that SUVs are so unsafe that they should be banned, but that safety is not a reason in favor of buying an SUV. SUVs are not as safe as cars for the following reasons:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Accident Avoidance Maneuvers
Most SUVs are tall and heavy for their size. Their portly weight and a high center of gravity are not condusive to handling around obstacles or other accident avoidance manuevers. An SUV's roadholding and acceleration figures are always inferior compared to a similarly sized/engined car.
This means that the SUV is much less adept at avoiding accidents, which of course is the best means of preventing injury. Some SUV drivers have responded by claiming that it is not so much the vehicle you drive, but the abilities of the driver that truly matter for safety. This is partly true, but even the best driver can be unsafe if he doesn't have the right equipment.
For example, say Michael Jordan decided to wear dress loafers on the court instead of his usual basketball shoes. He could still play, but he would be severely handicapped in his movement. The loafers would probably cost him the game. Likewise, cars are designed solely for on-road use, while almost all SUVs are not. Cars are best designed to handle whatever problems come your way on today's crowded roads.
Roll Overs
I know everyone is tired of hearing about SUV rollovers from the mass media and consumer magazines, but the fact is that SUVs roll twice as often as cars do according to NHSTA (National Highway Safety and Traffic Association) statistics. How can a supposedly "safe" vehicle generate these numbers?
Braking Distance
Everyone knows that the most important part of a vehicle is its brakes, and almost all SUVs fall short. In panic stop situations, every foot counts. The stopping distances of these porkers are lengthened by their excessive weight and primitive brakes. The poor lemmings can't stop fast enough to avoid falling off cliffs!
Compare the braking distances from 60 mph to 0 in the following illustration. In a common accident scenario, imagine you've encountered a stopped semi truck while going around a blind curve. The semi is 142 feet in front of you. Which is the safest vehicle to be in?
Porsche Boxster: 120 feet.......................Yawn.
Oldsmobile Intrigue: 131 feet..................Arrgh.
Dodge Caravan SE: 135 feet..................Whew.
Pontiac Transport: 141 feet.....................WHEW!
Isuzu Rodeo: 148 feet.............................BANG!!
Ford Explorer: 150 feet...........................SMASH!!!
Chevrolet Blazer: 154 feet.......................SLAM!!!!
Chevrolet Suburban: 155 feet..................CRUNCH!!!!!
Kenworth Pilgrimage: ??? feet..................&*$@#%=>#:~@%*!!!!!!
Statistical Source: Edmunds Car and Truck Guide.
Accident Injuries
Taken as a whole, statistics show that cars are safer designs than SUVs. Most of the best selling SUVs still use ladder frames from pickup trucks, which are not designed to absorb collision impacts. According to the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS), "In single vehicle crashes, heavy vehicles with stiff frames (most SUVs) might actually do more to harm the vehicle's occupants because there is little give, or energy absorption engineering, to dissipate the force of running into an immovable object."
This is proven when you consider the injury ratings in these crash test charts provided by the IIHS. Notice how many cars rate in the yellow (little injury) and how many SUVs rate in the red (high injury).
According to IIHS statistics, the only time an SUV will come out ahead in an accident is if it collides with a smaller vehicle. Even then, the only advantages you get with an SUV are at the expense of those driving smaller cars, which are designed to absorb impacts. SUVs just plain don't make sense safety-wise!
<hr></blockquote>
11-03-2002, 12:34 AM
#51
Racer
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Commerce, Mi
Posts: 393
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
[quote]Why not look into the VW equivalent of the Cayenne...The Touraug? Same vehicle, much more reasonable price
<hr></blockquote>
[quote]VW is an option, but a VW is still a VW and I drive more upscale cars (not trying to sound snotty, that is just reality). <hr></blockquote>
[quote]Why don't you get Cayenne S then?
It's less expensive (than TT) and you'll get the badge you're after.
<hr></blockquote>
[quote]Its not the badge (already have that). Its a price vs performance vs cost issue. The S doesn't even equate. <hr></blockquote>
Being a businessman I am sure that you qualify your decision on one of several factures, utility, stature, performance, or tax shelter. Obviously utility is not your motive because you dismissed the VW. Its not Stature or performance because you dismissed the Cayenne S and the TT model can’t be touched by another SUV. So that leaves tax shelter, Shelter what ever you need to and drive what it buys you. If this is not the case then what else could it be.
[quote]Call it snobby. Call it what you want. I make a lot of money and can afford to drive whatever I want. <hr></blockquote>
If you simply want to off load some money let me know and I will help anyway possible.
<img src="graemlins/beerchug.gif" border="0" alt="[cheers]" />
<hr></blockquote>
[quote]VW is an option, but a VW is still a VW and I drive more upscale cars (not trying to sound snotty, that is just reality). <hr></blockquote>
[quote]Why don't you get Cayenne S then?
It's less expensive (than TT) and you'll get the badge you're after.
<hr></blockquote>
[quote]Its not the badge (already have that). Its a price vs performance vs cost issue. The S doesn't even equate. <hr></blockquote>
Being a businessman I am sure that you qualify your decision on one of several factures, utility, stature, performance, or tax shelter. Obviously utility is not your motive because you dismissed the VW. Its not Stature or performance because you dismissed the Cayenne S and the TT model can’t be touched by another SUV. So that leaves tax shelter, Shelter what ever you need to and drive what it buys you. If this is not the case then what else could it be.
[quote]Call it snobby. Call it what you want. I make a lot of money and can afford to drive whatever I want. <hr></blockquote>
If you simply want to off load some money let me know and I will help anyway possible.
<img src="graemlins/beerchug.gif" border="0" alt="[cheers]" />
11-03-2002, 09:58 AM
#52
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Ibanez:
[QB]Call it snobby. Call it what you want. I make a lot of money and can afford to drive whatever I want.
Then just buy both....and get a Hummer while your at it
[QB]Call it snobby. Call it what you want. I make a lot of money and can afford to drive whatever I want.
Then just buy both....and get a Hummer while your at it
11-03-2002, 12:35 PM
#54
Pro
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Milton, MA
Posts: 579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
[quote]Call it snobby. Call it what you want. I make a lot of money and can afford to drive whatever I want. <hr></blockquote>
Ibanez, congratulations, you fit the perfect P-fish buyer profile
The broad sentiment found in this thread must be killing them back in Stuttgart. Rover has the legacy, VW (and others) have the value/$, and many (like me) rather do our utility driving in an estate. And for those who have never driven one, the allroad is one killer estate. It blows the base P-fish away!!!
This topic just gets better and better...
Ibanez, congratulations, you fit the perfect P-fish buyer profile
The broad sentiment found in this thread must be killing them back in Stuttgart. Rover has the legacy, VW (and others) have the value/$, and many (like me) rather do our utility driving in an estate. And for those who have never driven one, the allroad is one killer estate. It blows the base P-fish away!!!
This topic just gets better and better...
11-04-2002, 04:16 PM
#55
Instructor
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 118
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Argument Over
I bought the Range Rover today. After considering that a Cayenne S just partially loaded (before TTL) would be about $75k and a Turbo would be near $100k I went with the Rover. It is a beautiful car, is already out, has great offroad capabilities, doesn't look like every other SUV out there and is only $72k.
Anyone want a Cayenne?? I got the 12th place in line at my dealer (too bad they only have 25 deposits even after all of the press announcements about the impending release of the Cayenne).
I bought the Range Rover today. After considering that a Cayenne S just partially loaded (before TTL) would be about $75k and a Turbo would be near $100k I went with the Rover. It is a beautiful car, is already out, has great offroad capabilities, doesn't look like every other SUV out there and is only $72k.
Anyone want a Cayenne?? I got the 12th place in line at my dealer (too bad they only have 25 deposits even after all of the press announcements about the impending release of the Cayenne).
11-04-2002, 09:10 PM
#56
Addict
Rennlist Member
Rennlist Member
[quote]Originally posted by Ibanez:
<strong>Argument Over
I bought the Range Rover today. After considering that a Cayenne S just partially loaded (before TTL) would be about $75k and a Turbo would be near $100k I went with the Rover. It is a beautiful car, is already out, has great offroad capabilities, doesn't look like every other SUV out there and is only $72k.
Anyone want a Cayenne?? I got the 12th place in line at my dealer (too bad they only have 25 deposits even after all of the press announcements about the impending release of the Cayenne).</strong><hr></blockquote>
Ibanez,
Congratulations on the RR. I hope you enjoy it as much as we have.
To me, 25 deposits at a single dealership seems like a bunch. That's above M3 and M5 territory. Bodes well for the Cayenne, I would think.
<strong>Argument Over
I bought the Range Rover today. After considering that a Cayenne S just partially loaded (before TTL) would be about $75k and a Turbo would be near $100k I went with the Rover. It is a beautiful car, is already out, has great offroad capabilities, doesn't look like every other SUV out there and is only $72k.
Anyone want a Cayenne?? I got the 12th place in line at my dealer (too bad they only have 25 deposits even after all of the press announcements about the impending release of the Cayenne).</strong><hr></blockquote>
Ibanez,
Congratulations on the RR. I hope you enjoy it as much as we have.
To me, 25 deposits at a single dealership seems like a bunch. That's above M3 and M5 territory. Bodes well for the Cayenne, I would think.
11-05-2002, 12:44 AM
#57
Pro
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Milton, MA
Posts: 579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
[quote]I bought the Range Rover today. After considering that a Cayenne S just partially loaded (before TTL) would be about $75k and a Turbo would be near $100k I went with the Rover. <hr></blockquote>
Congratulations Ibanez, great choice, truly unique, great looking, and full of history. The subtle changes on the new Rover really are well done - makes it even more of a standout.
Best of luck...
Congratulations Ibanez, great choice, truly unique, great looking, and full of history. The subtle changes on the new Rover really are well done - makes it even more of a standout.
Best of luck...
11-23-2002, 04:34 AM
#58
Three Wheelin'
[quote]Originally posted by Ibanez:
<strong>but honestly, someone give me justification for buying the Cayenne.</strong><hr></blockquote>
More to the point can anyone give me justification for buying any SUV?!
Piers
1990 C4 Coupe
2001 A6 Avant 2.5TDi Quattro
1988 Citroen 2CV
<strong>but honestly, someone give me justification for buying the Cayenne.</strong><hr></blockquote>
More to the point can anyone give me justification for buying any SUV?!
Piers
1990 C4 Coupe
2001 A6 Avant 2.5TDi Quattro
1988 Citroen 2CV
11-24-2002, 08:09 PM
#59
Addict
Rennlist Member
Rennlist Member
[quote]Originally posted by Roygarth:
<strong>More to the point can anyone give me justification for buying any SUV?! Piers</strong><hr></blockquote>
How about:
1. Towing a trailer (track car, boat, etc.)
2. Hauling lumber, antiques, and other large items.
3. Shuttling 7-9 people
4. Safety
5. Driving position and view of the road (makes for an excellent road trip mobile)
Granted, some of these "needs" could be handled by a large station wagon, but others could not.
As an aside, I hear many folks point to poor gas mileage as a reason to avoid SUV's, but frankly, my 993TT and Range Rover both only manage 12 mpg.
<strong>More to the point can anyone give me justification for buying any SUV?! Piers</strong><hr></blockquote>
How about:
1. Towing a trailer (track car, boat, etc.)
2. Hauling lumber, antiques, and other large items.
3. Shuttling 7-9 people
4. Safety
5. Driving position and view of the road (makes for an excellent road trip mobile)
Granted, some of these "needs" could be handled by a large station wagon, but others could not.
As an aside, I hear many folks point to poor gas mileage as a reason to avoid SUV's, but frankly, my 993TT and Range Rover both only manage 12 mpg.
11-25-2002, 06:32 PM
#60
Three Wheelin'
[quote]Originally posted by Anir:
<strong>
How about:
1. Towing a trailer (track car, boat, etc.)
2. Hauling lumber, antiques, and other large items.
3. Shuttling 7-9 people
4. Safety
5. Driving position and view of the road (makes for an excellent road trip mobile)
Granted, some of these "needs" could be handled by a large station wagon, but others could not.
As an aside, I hear many folks point to poor gas mileage as a reason to avoid SUV's, but frankly, my 993TT and Range Rover both only manage 12 mpg.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Not convinced! Point 5 is valid but £50K for a nice view! 1,2 & 3 give me my Audi any day - 7 to 9 in a Range Rover..hmmmm! Point 4 is a red herring, why not be done with it and drive a tank?
But hey, everyone to their own.
BR
Piers
<strong>
How about:
1. Towing a trailer (track car, boat, etc.)
2. Hauling lumber, antiques, and other large items.
3. Shuttling 7-9 people
4. Safety
5. Driving position and view of the road (makes for an excellent road trip mobile)
Granted, some of these "needs" could be handled by a large station wagon, but others could not.
As an aside, I hear many folks point to poor gas mileage as a reason to avoid SUV's, but frankly, my 993TT and Range Rover both only manage 12 mpg.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Not convinced! Point 5 is valid but £50K for a nice view! 1,2 & 3 give me my Audi any day - 7 to 9 in a Range Rover..hmmmm! Point 4 is a red herring, why not be done with it and drive a tank?
But hey, everyone to their own.
BR
Piers