I've had 2 Taurus station wagons and 1 Mercury Sable station wagon in the past 14 years. I LOVE them. Smaller and easier to drive than a van but TONS of room for a family. Ford Taurus and Mercury Sable are basically the same thing.

I wish I could recommend a subaru, but it doesn't sound like it would meet your needs. We love them though, especially the AWD here in PA -- I have an outback wagon (DH actually has 2 ! of the little tiny justys for commuting). I joke that we're waiting for them to put a third seat in the forester before we have another kid.

Why do you HAVE to buy a new van? Do you really know how long a vehicle can go? 100,000 miles does not mean it's dead. Is your van paid for? If it is, maintance will be cheaper than a car payment. We have an older car with 175,000 miles on it. We probably spend about $500 or so a year on upkeep and repairing the original parts. Some people pay that in a month on a payment! My step dad is a mechanic and I tell him how I worry about the mileage on our car and he just told me last week that it's fine. He had a car in there to work on that had 206,000 miles on it and he said it was running fine, just needed minor repairs.

Just thought I would share that with you . . .

~Leslie~

I have a Honda Odyssey minivan. I love it. It has traction control, ABS, and 3 shoulder belts in the back. I have the EX model (high $20's) which comes with automatic sliding doors and a few other bells and whistles. The LX is less money and has fewer features than the EX. I think both models have the more important safety features and the same engine. There is also an EX with a navigation system available. I wanted the automatic sliding doors so I got the EX model without the navigation system.

It seats 7 and it has the rear seat that folds completely flat. The thing I love about the magic seat is that you do not have to take it out to fold it down flat so if you need it unexpectedly, you do not have to go home, take out the seat (no easy feat for one person) and then go pick up whatever you need. You also do not have to be Hercules to fold it down. All I do if I need it is to take the stuff out of the trunk (stroller, etc.), take off the headrests, and flip the seat down.

Happy car hunting.

Mommabear

I like the Mazda MPV. It's fairly small and easy to park, yet has plenty of room for up to 7 people. There's a large recess in the floor behind the 3rd-row seat that swallows lots of luggage/toys/whatnot, and instead of having to remove the 3rd-row seat when you need more cargo room and find someplace to put it, all you do is fold it into that recess and you're left with a flat floor. The second-row seat is split and the passenger-side seat slides sideways, so you can have either two separate bucket seats or a single long bench seat, or you can fold them forward or remove them altogether. The windows in the sliding doors roll down (unique amongst vans) and the driver's seat is comfortable and the surroundings are nice. If possible wait for the 2002 models which have a more powerful engine, remote power sliding doors, power driver's seat, and available traction control.

I also like the Honda Odyssey which has most of the same features, but it's a considerably larger van (both inside and out) so it's probably not what you want if you're looking for something small. These are so popular there's a months-long waiting list in many areas.

Conventional station wagons (or truck-based utility vehicles) just don't have as much room, but if you want one the Taurus wagon is pretty nice, as is the Audi A6 or Allroad (more expensive, but if you're even contemplating a Lexus LS430 it may be in your range). The Allroad has 4WD and a height-adjustable suspension for getting through the snow and muck. These have 3rd-row seats, but they are small, rear-facing seats suitable only for kids.

I got a Pontiac Aztec last summer and love it! Drives great, is roomy, better gas mileage than other SUV's and vans. Only car I would have gotten otherwise is the Buick Rendevous. Similar look with a third row seating.

Thanks everyone, I really appreciate your advice!

I have a 1993 Villager with 153,000 miles on it. It is still running well, though a bit more noisily than when it was new. I was considering getting a new car also but this one just keeps going!

I heard a report from the new show that station wagon-type vehicles are making a comeback. i think I'm going to wait and see what shows up. I like the roominess of the van but would like a bit more style than a van offers. I don't need an SUV.

I've been happy with my Dodge Durango. It's an SUV for sure, drives like a truck. But it drives wonderfully, has 3 rows and love having a powerful engine. My son's school is in a rural area and eventhough the weather can be very bad I've never had a problem.

My husband refused to get any kind of van.

ArabellaMiller,

I test drove a Dodge Durango yesterday, very nice and great price. I did not find a tremendous amount of info on it's safety ratings....I think it is "average". I would like a change of pace from a van. I've loved the van but after 8 years I need something different. Now I'm reading up on SUV's and hear they rollover...and now friends are coming out of the woodwork saying theyve rolled theirs etc. etc. It's enough to scare a Mom! Anyway, did you get much info on the safety aspects of your Dodge Durango? The one I test drove had a "high risk of rollover" sticker on the sun visor. Thanks! Gingersnap

Yes, a Durango will flip over more easily than a Villager, due to its higher center of gravity. Safetywise, it's about average (based on crash test data from the IIHS and NHSTA). But I doubt you'd be happy with a Durango if you're used to a van. The Durango gets very poor gas mileage (13 mpg city/17 hwy with the V8) and drives and rides like, well, a truck. The 3rd-row seat is difficult to access, and cramped and uncomfortable once you're in it. You can't walk to the 2nd row of seats from the front as with most vans. The rear doors are hinged rather than sliding, so you can't open them all the way in tight parking spaces. The luggage area is small and the load floor is high. Unless you need to tow a trailer or boat, I think you'd be better off with a van. Note that the General Motors (Chevrolet, Pontiac, Buick, GMC) and Chrysler/Dodge vans offer all wheel drive if you need the extra traction in bad weather, which is usually the reason given for buying a truck/utility vehicle instead of a wagon or van. Some of them are quite stylish too (the Chrysler Town & Country Limited is plush and has about every gizmo you could put in a vehicle, including power-operated side and rear doors; the Pontiac Montana has a "rugged" sport/utility look but a van's body and seats 8). But my first choices would remain the Honda and Mazda vans. They look cool, they drive well, they're powerful, have excellent safety records (particularly the Honda), get decent gas mileage, are reliable, and are incredibly practical.

Here is a link that might be useful: Durango crash test results

Hi Gingersnap,

The Durango does have a rollover risk (as do most SUVs), but I don't really worry about it, since I am a conservative driver. My husband on the other hand... LOL! We've had the truck for 2 years and put 60,000 miles on it. Aside from oil changes, we haven't had any service problems at all. My husband had 1 accident, where he was rear-ended by a tow truck with brake failure. The back door needed to be replaced, but the cops commented that there was very little damage considering the impact.

We have a V8 which I love, and I've found the gas milage to be around 16 - 19 mph. Gas milage really wasn't a consideration for us when we bought the car.

We generally don't keep the 3rd row up, as I can comfortably fit 3 carseats in the 2nd row. With the 3rd row down there's a ton of space. There's obviously less with it up, but I'm still able to fit hockey gear for 2 kids.

On the occasions that we've used the 3rd row for humans, I find it very easy to get in and out of (the seat in front easily flips up) and comfortable to sit in. I'm not a particuarly big person though; a 6 foot tall man or larger woman might be uncomfortable. The kids have certainly never complained either, and I like that our carseats fit snugly in the 3rd row if needed.

It's a comfortable ride for me. I don't have the trouble getting in and out of it that I have with my friend's Excurision and it's more spacious than the Lexus, Caddilac or Mercedes SUVs I've ridden in.

My sister has the Acura MDX and she's been really happy with that. It's much more wagon-like than truck-like though.

When we trade in our other car (a Volvo sedan), I'd like to get the Volvo wagon. A little more spacious, 4 wheel drive, but better gas milage than the truck. I'd really like the Volvo convertable, but that's not going to happen! :)

I don't know much about vans. Most everyone around here has either a wagon (the volvo or the subaru outback) or some sort of SUV.

You cannot disregard the threat of SUV rollovers just because you are a "conservative" driver. Many such rollovers have occurred when the driver swerved to avoid a car infringing on their lane, or an oncoming driver started careening into their side of the road. No matter how well you drive, you can't control what other drivers do, and a vehicle that is inherently unstable during quick corrective maneuvers is a safety risk no matter how you look at it.

The Acura MDX, Lexus RX300, Buick Rendezvous and their ilk are different animals. Although they vaguely resemble SUVs in appearance, they are based on front-drive car rather than rear-drive pickup-truck platforms and have a lower center of gravity, not to mention better gas mileage. They are essentially tall station wagons, not trucks. Most of these (i.e. the Lexus and Buick) don't even have all wheel drive unless you pay extra for it. The MDX (nice vehicle BTW) uses the same platform and drivetrain as the Odyssey, only shortened and with a different body, and added 4WD. The Lexus uses the previous-generation Camry/ES300 platform. The Buick is a General Motors minivan with a different body and interior. By contrast a Durango is a Dodge Dakota pickup truck from the rear doors forward, with the pickup box replaced by the enclosed 3rd seat area.

Thanks Arabella & Lee,

I am narrowing it down to a few vehicles. I like the Volvo station wagon....very plush but I think not so safe or roomy for the kids in the back....it only holds kids up 88lbs in the 3rd row seat....that doesn't sound very useful for very many years. But then again I wanted a break from a van.

I'm also considering the Toyota van (Sienna) with the entertainment system...it is supposedly the safest van this year, reasonably priced, and what fun with the entertainment system as an option....then again I'm still driving the same old thing...a van.

Oh, well...I'll keep you posted.

Does anyone own the Volvo station wagon?

Thanks, Gingersnap

Thanks for all of your suggestions! I am now the proud owner of a brand new Volvo station wagon!

Thanks again! Gingersnap

Congrats on your Volvo. That's a great buy and a safe car.

Anyone considering buying one of those big SUV's?

In my opinion they are huge and wasteful. Unless you have a big family, it's more vehicle than you need. Vans and station wagons get better gas mileage and are better for the environment. Not to mention, it's easier for us in regular sized vehicles to see around vans and station wagons. I feel like my safety is threatened every day by those huge vehicles.

I saw that they were coming out with Hummer type vehicles for 2002. All I have to say is, WHY?

Oh, Brenda, I agree. I can't fathom what people are thinking when I see them driving around in suburbans and excursions -- or even explorers or durangos. There's never 10 people in those vehicles -- maybe 2 at most.

IMO, the only people who should have vehicles of that size and caliber are farmers and others who need them for work. They're not safe, economical, or responsible choices for anyone else.

It really isn't your business what other people drive. Who are you to say that people should only have what you think they need? Aren't you over stepping your bounds a little?

Mommabear

Not at all. I drive a normal car and don't care to have the highways filled with 6000-pound monster trucks with weak brakes, sloppy handling, and bumpers that line up with my windshield.

We've gone this round before. I respect that some people have very conservative, MYOB attitudes. But I think it's unrealistic -- and maybe not so accurate -- to pretend that we don't all, to some extent, form our own opinions and even judgements about others. Those opinions and judgements can be positive or negative, but it's part of being human and living in an every shrinking world where the actions of others have direct consequences for each of us. Conversely, it's incumbent upon us to recognize that our own choices and actions have consequences for others.

When we're affected by someone else, we certainly have the ability and right to voice our response. You might define the point at which you're affected at a different place than I do; however, defining that point to a greater or lesser degree is not overstepping one's bounds. In this instance, safety and environmental concerns give rise to my opinion (which, incidently, doesn't really carry much weight; it's not like I'm enacting policy or physically preventing someone from making what I consider to be a bad choice).

To a greater or lesser extent, we all say that people should have what we think they need, whether it's by voting a certain way, or donating to a particular charity, or our participation in social organization, or simply voicing our opinion.

You could just as easily argue that it isn't really my business -- or anyone else's -- how the Taliban treats women, if the KKK holds a rally in my neighborhood, or how India and Pakistan resolve their disputes, or whether Turkey gets to join the EU, or if Germany allows neoNazi groups to proliferate. Where would you draw the line?

Kara:

I think libertarian is a better choice of words than conservative, but your general conclusion is correct. I agree that we are all allowed to form our judgements based on our own values. However, your original post stated

"IMO, the only people who should have vehicles of that size and caliber are farmers and others who need them for work. They're not safe, economical, or responsible choices for anyone else."

To me that implies that you think their availability should be restricted by the government. And THAT is where I draw the line. It is fine to have the opinion that SUV's are irresponsible (although my minivan gets the same gas mileage as my old Explorer) but to restrict availability is going a bit to far. The government should not be interfereing in the availability of certain types of automobiles. Why should I HAVE to buy what you consider economical? After all, it's my money. I can spend as much on a car as I want. Why should the goverment care what I spend my money on? IMO that is NOT the function of government.

I may have mininterpreted your statement. If so, please let me know.

Mommabear

Have you checked into the Jeep Grand Cherokee at all? Great resale value, great handling and affordable. Just a thought.

Mommabear,

Like it or not, the Government already has its hands, arms, and legs all over the design and sale of automobiles. There are hundreds of safety standards, environmental standards, fuel economy standards, and Lord knows what else that manufacturers must meet before they can legally sell a car in the USA. The laws are so strict, and so expensive to comply with, that many of the world's largest auto manufacturers don't bother exporting their cars here (tried buying a Peugeot, Fiat, MG, Alfa Romeo, Skoda, Renault etc. lately?). And they add $thousands to the price of every new car. These laws (particularly the fuel economy standards) effectively restrict what manufacturers can sell already. Large cars of the type prevalent in the '50s through '70s are no longer available, as they would use to much gas to pass muster. For nearly a decade in the mid-'70s to early '80s, there were no convertibles made in America - until stronger windshield headers and roll bars were developed, they wouldn't meet rollover safety specs. Laws govern the padding on armrests, the size and shape of radio knobs, and styles of hubcaps. Take a look at the fan switch on your car's A/C or heater. By law, the manufacturer must label it with an icon showing a four-bladed fan. If a three-bladed fan was depicted instead, they would be breaking the law.

One unintended consequence of the fuel-economy laws was a big shift away from cars and towards trucks, vans, and SUVs. The government required the average of all its cars to meet a certain fuel-economy standard. A second, lower standard applied to trucks (which includes pickups, vans, and utility vehicles). Thus, manufacturers were encouraged to drop their big cars and replace them with more trucks where the gas mileage (and safety) requirements were looser. So out went the big station wagons and land-yacht sedans, and in came the minivans, SUVS, and four-door pickups with back seats. And loopholes in the law allowed cars like the Chrysler PT Cruiser to be considered "trucks" for fuel-economy standards (earlier, 4WD station wagons also were considered "trucks"). The presence of minivans and mini-SUVs (i.e. Toyota RAV4) compensated for the mammoth pickups and full-size SUVs and vans when the average fuel economy was calculated.

The Government does care what you spend your money on, and won't let you buy or use things it deems unsafe or irresponsible. That's why you can't buy nuclear bomb kits, or asbestos-laced floor tiles, or certain drugs, or leaded gasoline, or cars that spew out too much carbon monoxide. And fuel consumption is a matter of public policy, as increased consumption results in overreliance on foreign oil, and the consequential political fallout and vulnerability to price fluctuations, mostly in the upward direction. Not to mention that excessive burning of fossil fuels fouls the environment. Thus we have energy-consumption laws governing cars, appliances, electronics, lighting, and construction.

So if you really believe the government shouldn't be "interfering in the availability of certain types of automobiles", you've got lots of work ahead of you convincing the feds to pull hundreds of rules and regulations from the books. And while you're at it, note all the government regulations concerning how we use our vehicles, including mandatory seatbelt and motorcycle helmet use laws, speed limits, and proposed bans on cell-phone use.

Anyway, nothing in Kara's statement suggested Government restriction of automotive choice, only that people who don't need heavy, gas-guzzling trucks shouldn't choose to buy them. And I agree with her. I don't believe the government should tell us what kind of vehicles we are allowed to buy either, but I nonetheless question the judgment of moms and dads who buy tippy 4WD off-road vehicles to drive their kids to soccer practice in the suburbs, whose only off-road ventures are on driveways and parking lots.

Much more in-depth and eloquent than I would have done. Thanks, Lee.

My argument, too, is that what we can buy is greatly restricted; in many, many instances that is the function of the government -- and we're probably all pretty glad it is. Certain people can't buy guns, and everyone else has to wait for a period of time before doing so. If I want a 6-pack of beer, I have to go to a bar, but I can only buy 2. If I want more than that, I have to go to a distributer and buy a case. If I want a bottle of wine, and it's after 9pm or a Sunday, I'm out of luck. In PA, it's only possible to buy wine & hard liquor at state stores and vineyards, and of course, regardless of the state, I have to be over 21. And, yes, I do support many of those laws.

Beyond that, we have systems of taxation and marketing that effectively make it impossible for some people to buy some products, depending on income. (Unfortunately, products like health care and prescription coverage fall into this domain.)

Would I support laws restricting who can buy SUVs and trucks? I honestly don't know. I'd have to see the actual law. While I consider myself to be very liberal, I do have problems with governmental interference with individual actions. However, I think that there are also instances where it's appropriate and prudent for the government to act in the greater interest (this would more readily apply to our past discussion on zoning and land use).

At any rate, I do think that there are measure that government can and should take: raising fuel economy limits, pushing for the use of existing technology that would allow vehicles to reach near 100mpg (technology that many argue is available, but is being suppressed by the auto and oil industry, who have financial influence on legislatures), developing alternative fuel technologies, forcing manufacturers to comply regardless of vehicle model or weight (one of the reasons I like subaru is because they meet CA's stricter emissions laws for all their models), and enforcing better safety standards.

So, yes, I do see the role of government as being directive, in some senses, of what we can buy and how we spend our money. SUVs? I don't know. But I still think that they're an irresponsible choice of vehicle, and I'm glad Gingersnap went with the volvo.

Lee:

It's kind of a stretch to go from a nuclear bomb to a Suburban don't you think?

Anyway, I think governmental application of broad standards (emissions, safety, etc.) is appropriate. I just think there should be a LIMIT to how much say the government has about what kind of retail purchases consumers have available to them and that limit should defenitely NOT extend to the availability of SUV's in the retail market.

I think Kara's note IS open to interpretation. As you will note I left a chance for her to say that my interpretation is incorrect if that is in fact the case. She is a very intelligent woman. If she disagrees with me she can let me know.

Mommabear

Kara:

You must have posted the same time I did.

Mommabear

I only mentioned the "nuclear bomb" as a wild, obvious example of something the government doesn't want in the hands of private citizens, followed by several more down-to-earth examples that were more relevant. (Actually, I'm not even sure whether it's illegal to possess or use a nuclear weapon, although I assume it is).

I wouldn't support any restrictions on SUV ownership; indeed if such a thing existed it would be difficult to define exactly what constitutes an SUV as opposed to a tall station wagon or a van. But I do support mandates that require reasonable fuel economy, adequate safety for both its occupants (meaning crashworthiness and vehicle stability) and other motorists (limited weight, standard bumper height etc.).

The problem with 4WD off-road vehicles is that they are inherently poorly suited for routine on-road driving. In order to provide the needed ground clearance and wheel travel for off-road use, an SUV must have its body raised well into the air, creating a high center of gravity, and in turn a high susceptibility to rollovers. The most capable off-road vehicle available, the Hummer, counteracts this tendency by being very wide, but its width makes it an impractical vehicle for normal roads (and parking spaces). Another approach is to use a hydraulic suspension that can lower the vehicle by several inches at highway speeds, and raise it for off-road or inclement weather use. That is what the Range Rover uses, but it adds about $2000 to the cost and thus isn't widely available. But another serious problem has no easy workarounds. In order to climb or descend steep grades, vehicles like the Jeep or Land Rover must have high bumpers to prevent them from scraping the ground when you begin the ascent or reach the bottom of a steep grade. These high bumpers don't line up with normal car or van bumpers, causing considerable damage to any car they hit. And since heavy SUVs have lots of momentum, that damage is compounded. It doesn't help that SUV brakes and cornering ability are generally subpar compared to cars, again because of the combined effects of weight, high center of gravity, and tires optimised for digging into muck. All of which are good reasons to avoid this type of vehicle unless you really need the off-road capability. No, I don't want the government telling me I don't drive on dirt trails enough to warrant buying an SUV, but I'm also responsible enough to buy a vehicle better suited to my needs if I only drive on public roads. And that goes double if I use my car to transport children.

Most buyers of SUVs never take them off-road. Asked why they bought them, they cite roominess, 3 rows of seats, luggage space, bad-weather traction, and the good view of the road ahead from the high seating position. All of these things are available from a 4WD station wagon (except the high seating position) without the negatives associated with off-road trucks. Or you can get a mini van, which is considerably roomier than a like-sized SUV and offers the same high seating position, but with better gas mileage and stability. Some even offer 4WD. Responding to the marketplace, many auto manufacturers are introducing vehicles that look like SUVs but are actually built on car platforms with lighter overall weight and lower center of gravity, rather than the old-school SUVs that are essentially modified pickup trucks. In addition to their safety and environmental advantages, these quasi-SUVs offer a smoother, quieter ride and a more car-like driving experience.

As for those reported 100mpg cars, they don't exist, nor is there any conspiracy amongst the auto or oil industries to suppress them if they did. There have been numerous people over the last few decades who've claimed the technology exists to build a 100 mpg car. Of these, exactly zero have produced a viable blueprint for such a car, much less built a working prototype that achieved 100 mpg. The auto industry has spent billions of dollars trying to develop more fuel efficient cars, and they would jump at any technology that could produce such high mileage (especially Ford, which just reported a $5.1 billion loss for the past year and would welcome anything that could boost sales). The best gas mileage currently available is from the Honda and Toyota hybrid electric/gasoline engines, which are good for about 60 mpg in the Honda Insight. But nearly every aspect of that car was compromised in order to deliver high gas mileage. The car seats only 2 people, has no real trunk, lacks air conditioning, and has a maximum capacity of 385 lbs., including luggage. The Toyota (and an upcoming hybrid-powered Honda Civic) are more practical, but their mileage is about 10mpg less. The hybrid engine adds thousands of dollars to the car's price, yet Honda and Toyota lose money on every car they sell. So why do they make them? Because selling a few thousand 50mpg cars allows them to sell additional big, gas-guzzling Lexuses (which have high profit margins) whilst keeping their corporate-average fuel economy above the Government standards. Surely they would build 100mpg cars if they knew how, even if they lost money on every one. Or they would apply that technology to their SUVs so they would get better mileage and thus not face sales restrictions. I don't know how the oil industry would react to ultra-efficient cars, but there's little they could do to stop manufacturers from building them.

And BTW, I don't support the 21y.o. drinking age either. Something is seriously amiss when the government trusts a 20 year old to fly an F-18 over Afghanistan to destroy enemy targets, but not to drink a beer.

Lee:

I have to agree with you on the drinking age. But I am way to old to have to worry about it.

Mommabear

Me, too. Should've been clearer; I support gun laws, but have some issues with drinking ages (voting too; I still can't fathom why 16year olds who can legally work and pay taxes haven't revolted!).