truck or SUV?

In My Humble Opinion
1

I need a new vehicle. My current car, a Saturn, is getting on in years, and is having some serious troubles I’ve been ignoring. The clutch is starting to slip, the shifting has been a wreck for years, now the headliner is starting to peel. One of the engine mounts has shrunk (peeled off the bracket? there’s a gap that shouldn’t be there). There are some other things that should be checked. I would rather not drop 5 grand or more on a car that would still be a stripped down, 8 year old Saturn. I’ve been wanting a new car for a couple years, but being jobless makes that difficult. But I just got a new job, so I’m anticipating being able to buy a new vehicle.

Now to the difficult part. (Yes, I’m loquatious.) I’ve been trying to decide what cars to look at. A couple years ago when I looked, I was dissatisfied. The cars that seemed stylish and attractive were rated poorly by Consumer Reports and such, but cars rated well were all consistently butt-ugly. Actually, I put off buying a new car then because of that, which payed off when I shortly thereafter lost my job.

Anyway, I’m looking around an thinking about what to get, and I’m considering a truck-like vehicle. The question becomes the OP - do I want a pickup or an SUV? I’ve sort of been anti-SUV just because of the ubiquitousness and the generally abused notion that everyone needs one. But I’m willing to be convinced.

I should point out what I’m looking for. I don’t really want a large vehicle. I have no need for a Ford F-350 supercab dually. As I mentioned, I currently drive a Saturn SL-1 - the 4 door car. I really don’t need a bigger car. I’m thinking of trucks because (1) they sit higher on the road, and I’ve had difficulty seeing over everybody else, and (2) looking at vehicles for stylishness, I’m not so impressed with cars but think some trucks look okay.

I’m thinking of a small 4 door truck like a Nissan Frontier or Toyota Tacoma Prerunner or maybe a Ford Explorer (the pickup). I don’t have much need for a large truck bed, maybe twice a year it would be useful (camping trips). I want the ability to seat four occasionally.

Are there any advantages to trucks over SUVs, or vice versa? I realize an SUV has all the space internal to the vehicle and thus protected from the weather. I expect I’ll get some sort of cover for the truck bed if I go that route. I get the impression that trucks may be cheaper than SUVs, but I don’t know that since I haven’t done any pricing yet. Also, how does insurance stack up? What about gas mileage? Anybody know?

Help me pick my vehicle, folks. Just not that butt-ugly box, the Aztec? Just when I think I’ve seen the ugliest vehicle ever conceived, someone comes out with something worse. shudder

2

Ummm, to what uses do you want to put the vehicle? If you’re going off-road, then a SUV should be higher on your list; if you’re transporting goods then you’ll more want a truck.

For more unusual vehicles, have you considered a Jaguar or Saab? Bit short on the passenger space, though.

Given that you’re thinking of a SUV or truck, you clearly want something tougher than a normal car. Perhaps something Russian or British?

3

Why do you want to be able to see over everybody else? A truck/SUV will reduce everybody else’s visibility. Do you regard that as everybody else’s problem? You still won’t be able to see over the other SUVs and trucks though. Why not consider one of these? However, you’d have to up the ante again when everybody else follows your lead.

4

I have a 1999 Jeep Cherokee Sport. It’s a small SUV – it’s shorter in length than many popular sedans. I’ve used it for camping, there’s an off-road trail I like, and it can seat five. Yesterday I used it to tow my Willys CJ2A. Since the carport has the CJ and two motorcycles in it, I don’t have anyplace to store my kayak. The rack on the Cherokee is a handy place to store it, and with the kayak on top it’s very easy to go down to the marina for some paddling. The 4.0L in-line six has plenty of power, and I can get an average of 25 mph on the freeway if I drive carefully. I like the utilitarian lines of the body better than any other SUV except for the Hummer. (The real Hummer – not the H2.) If I want to get seriously into off-road, the live axles can be quite handy. The Cherokee is (or was, rather; since they’re no longer made) a real “sport-ute” and not a “sport-cute”.

But it has a major drawback. There have been occasions when I needed to transport a motorcycle. A pickup would be better for this. I’ve looked at the Toyota Tacoma Extended Cab, and this is what I’ve decided: My next ute will be the Tacoma with a five-speed standard transmission and a four-cylinder engine.

First, the engine. Why only four cylinders? Economy. The six-cylinder powered trucks get the same mileage as my Cherokee. While I can get 25 mpg, the average is usually only 20. Less if I do more than my usual amount of driving on surface streets. My dad had a Toyota Hi-Lux truck in the early '70s. It’s four-cylinder engine was lacking at times, but most of the time it was great. And that was with a four-speed transmission (five-speeds didn’t come out until the following year). The truck was quite up to the task of hauling the motorcycle trailer with a pair of 250 Enduros on it and a centre box stuffed with camping gear. A new 4-cyl. Tacoma should haul my CJ quite well.

I believe a vehicle should be suited to the mission. I use the capabilities of my Cherokee and it has fulfilled its mission well. Since the missions do not always require carrying four or five people, I think that a pickup will handle everything the Cherokee can except for going off-road – but it’s more important to me to have the open carrying capacity.

BTW: A friend of mine has an Extended Cab 4-cyl., manual transmission Tacoma. She was getting 25 mpg on our trip down from Washington, and we were driving 75-80 mph. Not bad. (She had a camper shell on it. Since she was moving and had some stuff she didn’t want to get wet, she bought the shell.) Speaking of mileage, you’ll get better mileage if you leave the tailgate on instead of taking it off and leaving it open or putting up one of those nets.

Standard transmission? I don’t like automatic transmissions. It’s the one thing I don’t like about the Cherokee. I think the PreRunner is standard with the 6-cyl. engine and an automatic transmission. I’ve never see one with a four and a manual tranny.

Extended cab. There are three versions of the Tacoma’s body: a regular pickup, the Extended Cab, and the four-door crew cab. Having driven dad’s Hi-Lux when I came of age, I know that I need more interior room than a standard cab provides. The Extended Cab is nice. All the passenger room of an SUV, and an open cargo area to boot! But it comes at a price: the bed is only five feet long instead of the six-foot bed on the regular and extended cabs. The Extended Cab has the interior room I need, and a six-foot bed which I also have a need for.

The downside to the pickup? My kayak. My kayak is 12-1/2 feet long. (Actually, about 13 feet with the rudder.) I’d have to have a rack on the back to carry it, and there’s just “something” about that setup that I don’t like. The Cherokee is better in this regard.

I won’t be getting a truck anytime soon. I wouldn’t get much for the Cherokee, and I’m already paying for my new bike and the restoration of the MGB. Plus I’m still looking for a house to buy.

In any case, you need to decide what you want your vehicle to do. Then get the vehicle that fits those parameters.

5

I am going to second what Johnny L.A. said before me about getting a vehicle that suits your purposes.

I myself would not reccomend you get a truck or SUV unless you actually have a real need for one, either for the storage space (which would be better in a minivan) or for off-road usage. Considering what they are, SUV’s are generally quite overpriced for what you get, especially considering that they are either a low rent truck chassis with an enclosed back and a huge price premium, or a tall station wagon with a huge price premium. If it is something with more upright seating that you want, a car like the PT Cruiser (which will start at like, 16,000) will provide the more upright trucklike seating, but have the handling and maneuverability of a car, along with the better gas mileage.

Gas mileage is another issue to take into account. Is that extra visibility going to be worth the extra 30% you are going to be paying at the pump every time you fill up? Even though 25mpg (which is EXTREMELY good for a truck, most are lucky to pull 20) you will still be a good 10 mpg off of the pace set by an equivalent car.

The visibility is really an overrated thing too. I noticed this driving my dad’s 1993 GMC Sierra the other day on the highway, trying to follow someone who was driving a Suburban. I should note that my dad’s sierra is a 4x4, so it isn’t a low sitting truck.

Guess what, I still couldn’t see around the other trucks on the road. A Chevy Trail Blazer pulled in front of me, and I completely lost sight of the Suburban I was following.

There are a lot of companies that are now making taller cars, that have the benefits of a SUV in space, but keep the mileage and handling benefits of a car. The PT Cruiser, Toyota Matrix, Pontiac Vibe, Mazda Protege5 (which looks, surprisingly enough, like a smaller version of an Audi A4 Avant) amongst others.

Even something like a Subaru Impreza will offer you 4wd, great handling, and a lot of space, with good gas mileage.

Handling can be another major issue, and something to keep in mind if you are looking to make something your daily driver. In a truck-based live axle suspended vehicle, ride and handling will be rather sub-par. My dad’s GMC, for instance, will have the back end jump around on exit ramps if there is a bump, and is a total bear to park due to it’s horrible turning radius. It’s also noisier, and gets considerably worse gas mileage than my Olds Aurora. My Aurora, mind you, is a larger car, with a v-8, and it pulls close to 30 mpg on the highway. My dad’s GMC, with 5.0 v-8, pulls 18.

I personally don’t think that the trade-offs in a truck are worth the premium one pays, the poor ride/handling, and the horrible gas mileage.

Some people are willing to sacrifice a lot of their driving pleasure in the name of style, and pay more doing it.

I, on the other hand, am not.

I am more happy driving my 1967 Chrysler, which at over 18ft long is both easier to park and more maneuverable than my dad’s GMC, on top of being able to swallow a recliner in the back seat (yes, I have done this) while pulling gas mileage that is right in line with the truck.

I find it rather sad, that I can get a car from 1967, that as far as driving dynamics goes, can even come close to comparing to a modern truck. This simply should not be the case, but it is. But look at a modern truck, the chassis and suspension is rugged, yes, but very old-school in technology.

The suspension on my dad’s GMC, for instance, is almost identical to my old Chrysler.

Live axle rear suspension, torsion bar front. roughly equivalent in size, but the chrysler has a lower cg, and carries more weight on the rear than the truck, leading to a smoother ride. The lower CG allows it to have better handling. The Chrysler also has a tighter turning radius than the GMC. The 1967 brakes suck, but that is what happens when a car has drums on all four corners.

Now, admittedly, a car-based SUV will be far better in those respects, but still a bit of a compromise compared to a car.

Now, if you plan on taking the thing offroad, all my points are moot, as a truck/suv is the only real choice there.

6

I drove Jeeps for many years, but opted for a Honda CR-V this time around. Love it to death. Not a behemoth that you can’t park or turn around, but high enough to see over the Celicas on the road, AND it won’t bust your bank account (2003 sells for about $22K for the top shelf model). If $22K is too high, you might want to look at the Hyundai SUVs, but check with Edmunds for ratings first.

If you can wait a year, Ford is coming out with an alternative fuel version of the Escape (gas/electric), which will give you height plus about 40 mpg in town. It will probably run about $25K, though.

7

Sorry. I meant to say the Crew Cab.

8

The SUV I mentioned above that is specifically butt-ugly is the Element. bleck.

I don’t really have a need for off-roading. I don’t really have a need for hauling large loads. I just don’t much like the alternatives.

PT Cruiser - bleck. I think it’s hideous.

I’ve also been considering a Dodge Intrepid. It’s a nice looking car with plenty of room. The back seat headroom isn’t the greatest, but then most cars have that problem these days. SUVs and wagons are better in that regard, because they aren’t trying to curve back down.

I considered a Mustang, but I’m not sure it has quite enough room for hauling things/people and Consumer Reports wasn’t favorable.

Now if there’s a nice looking car with good gas mileage, good handling, low road noise, and comfortable seats that isn’t going to fall apart every few miles, I’m interested. So far I can’t find it.

9

Protege5 Review

Check that out, it is a quick review on the Protege5. It’s a sharp looking little car, a wagon (and a darn good looking one at that) and has some positive reviews. It’s also pretty inexpensive.

10

I actually drove the Protoge 5 for a week this summer. Not bad looking, absolutely wonderful suspension, and decently quiet.

Needs more pep though.

Check out a 2000 Subaru Legacy GT Wagon (not the outback with the ugly side cladding). IMHO, very nice. Has everything else you are looking for.