My Prius & My SUV - do I need it?

The way I see it you already own the MDX and it should last a very, very long time. If she likes it and doesn't drive a whole lot anyway then there's not much sense in selling it at ~1 year old. Afterall let's not forget that it takes a great deal of energy and resources to make a new vehicle and buying another new vehicle means using even more. I **still** don't think that the "bigger is better" mentality serves to make our roads safer but at least the MDX is not one of those truck-based things. The Hummers, Expeditions, and Durangos (as a sampling) are the vehicles that I worry about most.

 

My wife & I had the same issue with our Tahoe. Sacrificing space (3 Kids) for economy and eco-friendliness. We are scheduled to pick up our new Prius in KC on Saturday. She has owned the Tahoe for 7 years and was lamenting the fact that ther trusty ride was about to be traded off. She called me from the gas station saying she was sad she was filling the 'Hoe up for the last time. I asked her how much to fill up. $75, because that is all the pump will allow on your debit card. I then asked her how many miles she had gone. about 350. If my math is correct @ $3.18 ($3.179) she pumped 23.5 gallons. She got 14.89mpg. For the same 23.5gal (and $75) assuming 45mpg from the Prius, it should cover 1,057.5 miles. I explained that and told her for the same $75 we could drive from home to St Louis and 3\4 the way back, or we could drive to Disney in Orlando Fl. She paused for a minute, said "Wow, why havent we done this sooner?" I'm asking myself the same question.

 

You can't protect people from themselves....but 5000 pounds of steel will protect you from them.

Right now we have a 4Runner as our "family vehicle" and love it. I'm trading in my G35 sedan for the Prius because my 100 mile commute is getting painful at $3.50/gallon! Money isn't an issue, but burning that much extra fuel for no reason really bothers me. The 4runner is used for "short haul" trips and isn't driven too often, so it's overall consumption is fractional compared to my 18-mpg-premium-fuel-sucking-280-hp-AWD-sedan. Sure, it's a blast to drive when I'm not sitting in DC traffic. But it's just not practical anymore. However, I've also found there are at least 2 times/week when I need my 4Runner to haul stuff around and it's just nice to have the extra space with a baby in tow!

I figure the Prius balances out the 4Runner's consumption

Let's face it though...unless you plan on driving a Tractor Trailer around for your family, you will never be truly "safe" on the roads. It's a risk we all take as part of living.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(priusenvy @ May 24 2007, 02:12 AM) [snapback]448885[/snapback]</div>

I personally disagree. Statistically, you're a bit safer in an SUV (you have a 12/1,000,000 less chance of being fatally injured), but most cars will keep you sufficiently safe in the vast majority of circumstances, some more than others.

I contend that safety is low on the list of reasons you would actually "need" an SUV, and, again, the "safety" idea supports a sort of arms race mentality where the roads become collectively less safe because everyone thinks they "need" an SUV to protect themselves against the next SUV.

Now here's another question I have to pose a bit of a challenge against the "SUV safety" idea: the statistical difference between the fatality rates of a large SUV vs. a mid-sized SUV are about the same between a mid-sized SUV vs. a mid-sized automobile.

Now, logicially, if we are to accept the idea that it's a safety requirement that a family buys a mid-sized SUV over a mid-sized car because of the 12/1,000,000 difference in fatality rates, couldn't someone equally claim a safety requirement to buy a large SUV (Hummer) over a mid-sized SUV because it has an (ironically identical) 12/1,000,000 difference in fatality rates?

If not, I think we have a bit of an inconsistancy in our thinking which begs the question: if you feel safe in a mid-sized SUV over a large SUV, then why wouldn't you feel safe in a mid-sized car over a mid-sized SUV when the statistical difference between the categories is identical?

 

Why does one's choice of vehicle evoke the self preservation instinct?

I've driven my '73 Pinto since I got my license in 1978...she's got over 240,000 miles on her under my care, and we've been all over the country (with the exception of Hawai'i and Alaska) together...the "I need a SUV for my family's safety" folks come across to me as a bit selfish and paranoid.

This is the car that explodes and (to make it even better) also has doors which become wedged shut, usually in a rear-end impact.

Aren't the thirteen or however many airbags in the Prius enough?

There will always be risks in life. I'll bet the food on half of these families' tables is probably slowly killing them (that SUV probably was used to transport McFood or like that)...no one seems to be worried about childhood obesity or any other of the manifold things which we do to ourselves each day...

...but when it comes to rationalizing the purchase of a vehicle we really don't need (to transport our increasingly fat a**es), well, what better reason than the "safety of our family?"

 

This New Yorker article has been linked before, but it's definitely worth a read, for those of you with the sense to question your SUV ownership

http://www.gladwell.com/2004/2004_01_12_a_suv.html

SUVs don't give you safety, they give you the FEELING of safety. Which is actually different than real safety.

Best thing you can probably do though, if you already have an SUV, is to take responsibility for your driving, and drive safely and cautiously at all times. In ANY car, you're hurtling along and ridiculous speed, surrounded by thousands of pounds of metal. Act like your life is worth something!

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Boulder Bum @ May 24 2007, 10:14 AM) [snapback]449149[/snapback]</div>

The reason I place little importance on statistics like that is that they assign a single number to represent the "safety" of a very diverse group of vehicles.

As I wrote before, a pre-2007 MDX is based on a minivan platform, and handles and rides more like a minivan than a truck.

The type of accident I fear most (whether rational or not) is being hit from behind at high speed while stopped (or slowing). In fact, that describes every accident I've ever been in in my life, and every accident my wife has been in for as long as I've known her. I'm much less worried about the risk of accidents due to rollover or poor emergency handling because my SUV is very different than other SUVs, and handles more like a car. Infiniti's FX45 and Porsche's Cayenne SUVs accelerate, brake, and handle like sports cars. Do you think that just because they have SUV styling it automatically makes them more susceptible to being in accidents, and makes them less safe? That's stupid.

 

I agree and think its safer and she should keep it.

I have the Prius and had a 2005 Tundra Crewcab for my wife and three kids and decided to buy something smaller to park with etc. and wound up with a 2006 Odyssey with DVD/NAV. It is a great minivan for her and the kids and probably isn't much different than your Acura in safety. I looked at the MDX and Highlander Hybrid but decided sliding doors were even better in parking lots etc.

Prius is a great car but really, it isn't safe enough with all those large vehicles. In a different world without SUVs, you could come to a different conclusion. I worry about getting killed in the Prius by an idiot in a two ton SUV. Driving around in the minivan feels safer. As far as rolling over, your Acura probably has pretty good anti-rollover technology.

As far as the sexist comments, you're off. I've seen plenty of idiot men drivers who don't even know how to check oil OR drive. I admit, women seem more distracted but they are also seem less agressive. Pick your poison. I don't think sex is a good indicator of danger on the road.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(bigmahma @ May 23 2007, 07:41 PM) [snapback]448574[/snapback]</div>

Having 4x4 helps if you live in snowy areas. Prius does not always work. Now, if you feel you want bigger car for your family, why not Lexus hybrid?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Basildane @ May 23 2007, 06:11 PM) [snapback]448635[/snapback]</div>

Crash dynamics are VERY complicated. You cannot generalize about the safety of a vehicle based on what happens in a single non-controlled experiment.

All things equal, heavier vehicles do better than smaller vehicles in multi-vehicle collisions. But all things are not necessarily equal.

The good news about the Tahoe is that it has a 5-star front crash rating from the NHTSA. The bad news is that it has not recieived a side impact rating, nor has it been tested by the IIHS. Also, it doesn't have side impact airbags (only side curtain), and the side curtain airbags are optional (hopefully your Tahoe has them).

The Tahoe "feels" like a safe vehicle because it is so big. It probably is a safe vehicle. But we don't have the data out there to back it up.

Some SUVs do well in testing. Some fare poorly. But if you want to drive a safe vehicle, go off the data - not what your gut tells you.

So, no, there's nothing idiotic about wanting to drive a safe vehicle. Your MDX looks to be a good choice according to the NHTSA and the IIHS (the 2007 model is actually a top safety pick from the IIHS).

The Prius is less safe than a well-designed larger vehicle. Period. But it's still safer than most of the vehicles on the road - larger or small. The Prius has standard side airbags, ABS, and available ESP/VSC (GET IT). If you're buying a vehicle, get the facts, get the safety features that we know are effective (ESP, side airbags), and understand how they work.

Also, a personal note about side airbags: I have actually been in a side collision in a Prius at ~35 MPH. Had there been a front passenger in the vehicle, the side airbags probably would have saved their life.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(bigmahma @ May 23 2007, 08:20 PM) [snapback]448593[/snapback]</div>

Sounds a little bit like me...

Well, or one can be like my guy friend K, and almost get killed (either by millimeters or fractions of seconds) once every couple of months. I can think of four such incidents in the last 9 months.