Autos: A family hauler

[Gary F]

I live in Upper Michigan a few miles from Lake Superior. We get about 200 inches of snow each year. All of the AWD vehicles do fairly well as long as we don't get a really bad lake effect snow dump. My kid drives a Subaru Impreza and has never had a problem getting to class. One of my wife's friends has a Toyota Sienna minivan and it does well for her. Larger vehicles with lockable center differentials like my Chevy Avalanche or my wife's Toyota Sequoia can handle the worst roads which is good since the plows don't always make it to my neighborhood for a few days after a bad snowstorm. Be careful with putting a roof mounted storage container on a taller vehicle as it might be too high to get into some parking decks if that is a consideration.

 

[pilot_dude]

I've looked at the roof-tops (I think I mentioned them in my earlier post), and they are indeed a viable option.

It's about multi-year planning. We (hope) to have our second child within 3 years of our first child. So, within 3.5 years, we hope to be:

Two 30 somethings
1 3 year old
1 newborn

I will, most likely, still be in Richmond in 3.5 years.

So, four people, 500 miles one-way, four times a year. Subaru plus rooftop is probably a stretch. Rooftop box also means going to the hitch for the bicycles. (Cycling is big in our family)

It will be a fun weekend behind the wheel!

Cheers,

-Andrew

If you're going to need it 4x/year, why not keep what you have and rent when going out of town with the family? I haven't done the math but on the surface it seems like a viable option.

 

[CJones]

If you're going to need it 4x/year, why not keep what you have and rent when going out of town with the family? I haven't done the math but on the surface it seems like a viable option.

I did that for our Christmas trip. Wife's car's clutch is pushing 220,000 miles and we needed to drive 2,000 miles round-trip. Rented a 2010 Impala from Hertz for $185 for 5 days with unlimited miles. Got 29mpg (better than wife's car by a little bit), had TONS of room (more than my wife's Passat) and didn't have to worry about the oil change when we got back.

 

[Henning]

Fuel economy is inverse to the frontal area of the vehicle, period. 4wd/AWD will cost you economy, but if you need it, you need it. I had a 76 Honda Civic that I could not get stuck in the snow even trying and driving it through the middle of a storm that dumped 3' in one night, it got 50mpg even with me driving it abusively. If you want AWD though, I would say sacrifice the height of the Crossover/SUV type vehicles and stay with the lower frontal area Subarus which will get you better economy. Also, if you go with one of the bigger vehicles, get the biggest engine they offer. With larger vehicles you often get better economy with the big engine than little. I would also be looking at an Audi or VW with Quattro and TDI.

 

[astanley]

If you're going to need it 4x/year, why not keep what you have and rent when going out of town with the family? I haven't done the math but on the surface it seems like a viable option.

It's an option. Larger vehicles at peak times (when we tend to travel -- holidays, summer, etc) are somewhat expensive -- my last Chevy Tahoe rental was $1200 for a week and one day -- so 4x a year for 2-3 weeks at a time would be a punt at best, more likely to push me off worse (fully loaded view).

Cheers,

-Andrew

 

[Ghery]

Our '72 Chevy Vega only lasted 35,000; our '84 Sedan deVille 80,000 (and the dealer told us that was impressive!).

OMG you got more than 25,000 out of a Vega. You did well.

That aluminum to Steel bolt-on meant electrolysis of the bolts. The exhaust was another steel to aluminum affair that always failed. What a piece of c_ap!

The only Vega I saw that was worth a darn belonged to the son of a friend back in the late 1970s. Had a Chevy 327 V-8 under the hood. Sure was glad I wasn't paying for his tires.

 

[CollinLeon]

Fuel economy is inverse to the frontal area of the vehicle, period.

It's not quite that simple... There is the coefficient of drag also... There's usually not enough difference between the coefficient of drag on vehicles in a certain class to make as much of a difference as a reduction in frontal plate area. The weight of a vehicle also makes a difference, but it is mainly just during the acceleration, not so much once you get up to speed, thus the weight mostly affects the fuel economy during stop-and-go city driving.

4wd/AWD will cost you economy, but if you need it, you need it. I had a 76 Honda Civic that I could not get stuck in the snow even trying and driving it through the middle of a storm that dumped 3' in one night, it got 50mpg even with me driving it abusively. If you want AWD though, I would say sacrifice the height of the Crossover/SUV type vehicles and stay with the lower frontal area Subarus which will get you better economy. Also, if you go with one of the bigger vehicles, get the biggest engine they offer. With larger vehicles you often get better economy with the big engine than little. I would also be looking at an Audi or VW with Quattro and TDI.

Front wheel drive vehicles handle pretty good in snow / ice... Definitely better than rear wheel drive. With rear wheel drive, you accelerate too quickly and you are likely to have the rear of your car passing you as it starts to swap ends -- a fun thing to do on an ice covered parking lot with no poles are concrete curbs, not a fun thing to do on a roadway. In the same situation with a front wheel drive vehicle, it just sits there and spins the front tires and doesn't move -- kind of boring, but boring is what you want on snow / ice... Of course, 4WD doesn't really mean truly FOUR wheel drive unless you have some sort of all wheel positive traction locking differential, just like when you can get stuck with a 2WD vehicle when only one tire is off the road and without traction. If the snow is deeper than your front bumper, then you are using the bumper to plow the snow. That might work for very loose snow or maybe for awhile, but it is quite possible that you will reach a point where you just can't push it anymore. In this sort of situation, having a vehicle with a lot of ground clearance is great. Of course, the ultimate for this sort of driving would be the original military type Hummer H1 due to the way that the drive chain is designed -- there's basically nothing hanging down to drag through the snow. The H2s and on are not true Hummers, they are a boxy body put on a Chevy Tahoe frame and have the diffs and axles down where they will catch on things that an H1 would never even see.

 

[CollinLeon]

It's an option. Larger vehicles at peak times (when we tend to travel -- holidays, summer, etc) are somewhat expensive -- my last Chevy Tahoe rental was $1200 for a week and one day -- so 4x a year for 2-3 weeks at a time would be a punt at best, more likely to push me off worse (fully loaded view).

Let's assume that you have a larger 4x4 that gets 12 mpg and you drive 15K miles per year. Assuming $53 per gallon gas, you are looking at $3750 per year in fuel costs. Let's assume that your current vehicle gets 30 mpg. This works out to be $1500 per year for the fuel costs. So, you would be paying $2250 extra each year for the larger 4x4. The question that you have to ask yourself is whether it is worth it for the times that you really need the larger vehicle. If your current vehicle is paid off and you just have liability insurance on it and the new vehicle would have a loan on it and you would have full coverage insurance, it would make the new vehicle even more expensive to operate, regardless of whether the new vehicle was fuel efficient or not.

When I take long trips in a car these days, I'm more likely to use my pickup (Dodge Ram 1500 QuadCab 4x4) since it is very comfortable / roomy and with the hard bed cover, I can put anything that I might want to carry with me in there. I use it when I'm driving down to South Florida for dive trips since I can put a few SCUBA tanks and all my dive gear in the bed and still lock it. Plus, when I get through diving, I'm putting the wet gear in the bed of the truck, not in the carpeted interior like I would with a normal SUV. I have taken long trips in my S.O.'s Cayenne, but it is just too easy for me to look down and see that I'm cruising along at 100+ mph. The vehicle is just so smooth and has so much horsepower that you don't notice your speed.

 

[CollinLeon]

It's an option. Larger vehicles at peak times (when we tend to travel -- holidays, summer, etc) are somewhat expensive -- my last Chevy Tahoe rental was $1200 for a week and one day -- so 4x a year for 2-3 weeks at a time would be a punt at best, more likely to push me off worse (fully loaded view).

Use your existing vehicle and rent (or buy) a small enclosed trailer for those trips.

U-Haul has a small "sport" trailer that can supposedly be pulled by any car that goes for $20 per day...

Whereas their 4x8 enclosed cargo trailer goes for $15 per day:

On the other hand, if you want to buy a 4x6 enclosed trailer, it goes for about $1200-1500...

Personally, I would go with one that had a bed of 8 ft instead of 6 ft since many motorcycles will not fit in a 6 ft bed.