# Wagon, Van, SUV



## bassholic (Nov 10, 2009)

These three vehicles were made to provide more interior space for the passengers. Outside of that is there any real difference? Does one get better Gas mileage than the other?

The easiest comparison for this board is the 5 wagon and the X5/X6. What are the practical differences in these vehicles?


----------



## Calliope (Feb 3, 2007)

Wagon = Soccer mom car 
SUV (X5) = mans car

So depending on which bassholic is posting, it will change how I would respond to this


----------



## 'Cane (Jun 16, 2003)

Ride height/handling/performance/fuel economy


----------



## sdbrandon (Mar 18, 2006)

A minivan is substantially larger inside and out over a typical wagon. A 3 series wagon for example, is tiny especially in the back. The wheel wells encroach on storage space significantly.

IMO, wagons are desired when a little more utility is required and the person wants a car like appearance and ride.

Minivans work well for families with kids whose focus is on max storage and hauling and styling/ handling, and performance are not a priority. Also the rear doors slide which prevents kids from damaging the car and other vehicles entering and exiting.

SUVs are preferred when more utility is required than a wagon can provide. Typically on a truck chassis, these vehicles are better suited for towing, all wheel drive situations, more engine choices, and better handling over a van.

In my case, I chose and X6 as I wanted a 5 series ride/luxury, higher ride height, the ability to tow. Not as much room as an X5, but ample room for 4 adults and 4 sets of golf clubs. 

In the end, it depends on your needs and desired features. Every one has draw backs and compromises. My goal was one vehicle that met all my needs rather than purchasing 3 vehicles.


----------



## Billd104 (Aug 30, 2006)

The wagon AKA Touring gets my vote, but alas, BMW in their infinite wisdom has forgone the 2011 5 series touring in the NA market in favor of the 5 series GT. Beauty vs. the beast IMHO.


----------



## mullman (Jan 5, 2006)

Hauling kids or just stuff?
Mainly just around town or road-trips?
Need to tow anything?

We have had three Wagons, one SUV, and two Vans, and the Van is by far the most convenient for us.
Throw in the video systems, and 110v outlets and there is no more '_Are we there yet_'.


----------



## pilotman (Feb 2, 2006)

we are currently leasing a 2008 VW Passat Wagon 2.0t.

We absolutely love it. Great kid hauler for our twin 2 year old boys. It has more cargo room than a Nissan Murano, plenty of passenger space, it routinely pulls 34mpg on the highway, and handles pretty decent, much better than comparable SUVs and minivans.

BMW 3 series wagon is a joke, and pretty much useless.

A lot of this depends on your personal preferences....


----------



## sdbrandon (Mar 18, 2006)

Billd104 said:


> The wagon AKA Touring gets my vote, but alas, BMW in their infinite wisdom has forgone the 2011 5 series touring in the NA market in favor of the 5 series GT. Beauty vs. the beast IMHO.


I find it funny that if BMW simply called the GT the new wagon there would not be so much comotion about it. 

The GT is a wagon with a sloped rear roof. But it is still a wagon with a more modern design.

It seems everyone is updating their wagons with a suv'ish/crossover look and calling them wagons or something else perhaps for marketing. But they are all wagons to me.


----------



## Billd104 (Aug 30, 2006)

sdbrandon said:


> I find it funny that if BMW simply called the GT the new wagon there would not be so much comotion about it.
> 
> The GT is a wagon with a sloped rear roof. But it is still a wagon with a more modern design.
> 
> It seems everyone is updating their wagons with a suv'ish/crossover look and calling them wagons or something else perhaps for marketing. But they are all wagons to me.


But the GT isn't a wagon or touring. It is a vehicle all to itself. The cargo area behind the rear seats is tiny compared to the touring (about the same as the 5er sedan) and has a much higher stance GT 61.4 to the roof, touring 57.5 and weighs almost 600 pounds more at 4586lbs for the GT and 3946lbs for the touring. and stands higher off the ground as well. I have driven one and I can't complain about the feel (all BMW) or the power (550i) but I still prefer the look of my touring over the GT.


----------



## sdbrandon (Mar 18, 2006)

Billd104 said:


> But the GT isn't a wagon or touring. It is a vehicle all to itself. The cargo area behind the rear seats is tiny compared to the touring (about the same as the 5er sedan) and has a much higher stance GT 61.4 to the roof, touring 57.5 and weighs almost 600 pounds more at 4586lbs for the GT and 3946lbs for the touring. and stands higher off the ground as well. I have driven one and I can't complain about the feel (all BMW) or the power (550i) but I still prefer the look of my touring over the GT.


Is the "usable" cargo area really smaller? I don't see folks stacking junk up to the roof in wagons. It can be done but I rarely see that.

So although cargo space is measured is cubic feet, utilization of the space is a different story.

It also appear that if the rear seats are folded down, the GT has more "usable" storage space. It seems really roomy in the back seats compared to a wagon.

My friend has an X5 and can only store 4 set of golf clubs in the back like my X6 "securely". Storage of any items higher than the seat backs and items fly forward potentially injuring someone.

So while the extra 2 feet here and there is debatable, regardless, we are not talking about that much difference in the end. Especially when the GT rear passengers will ride in much more comfort.


----------



## chivas (Aug 31, 2002)

a wagon is just a car with the trunk being part of the cabin. great to haul most of your "stuff" and minor furniture.

a van (assuming you mean a minivan) is more of a people carrier. very spacious and should have easy in.out abilities (read: just a bit higher than a car but not much more). 

SUV *should* be a station-wagon truck/pick-up. it's got a lot less room than the van and sits a lot higher. since it's based off a truck's chassis (at least it should), mileage is poor. it is durable for carrying some stuff around but don't be mistaken it for being roomy. some station wagons have more room than these things. 90% of the SUV owners shouldn't own one. they don't plan on taking it off road, they get pissed when the price of gas goes up and ponders why some things just don't fit in the rear.


these days, minivans have stepped up and can even tow a few things (like a camper or small boat). they also come in awd format for those living in crappy climate conditions. they handle better than SUV's but fall short behind a regular wagon since logically, their center of gravity is higher than a car but lower than a truck. 

if you have 2 kids and a dog, a wagon would do just fine for medium trips. if you have 3 kids and one or more dogs, a minivan would be much better. if you work for a construction site and need to get a few coworks and tow heavy machinery (and the company is paying for gas), look no further than the SUV.


----------



## geebeemer (Jul 2, 2005)

bassholic said:


> These three vehicles were made to provide more interior space for the passengers. Outside of that is there any real difference? Does one get better Gas mileage than the other?
> 
> The easiest comparison for this board is the 5 wagon and the X5/X6. What are the practical differences in these vehicles?


For a chick or a dude? :dunno:



Just teasin' you guys.


----------



## innovativeit (Sep 30, 2007)

sdbrandon said:


> *Is the "usable" cargo area really smaller? I don't see folks stacking junk up to the roof in wagons. *It can be done but I rarely see that.
> 
> So although cargo space is measured is cubic feet, utilization of the space is a different story.
> 
> ...


I'm taking delivery of a 535xiT next week because I have three dogs and they can stand up in the stationwagon but not in the trunk of a GT.


----------



## BlueC (Jan 13, 2007)

Calliope said:


> Wagon = Soccer mom car
> SUV (X5) = mans car
> 
> So depending on which bassholic is posting, it will change how I would respond to this


I see far more soccer moms driving SUVs.


----------



## sdbrandon (Mar 18, 2006)

innovativeit said:


> I'm taking delivery of a 535xiT next week because I have three dogs and they can stand up in the stationwagon but not in the trunk of a GT.


The best justification for a $50k wagon I have heard. :rofl:


----------



## innovativeit (Sep 30, 2007)

sdbrandon said:


> The best justification for a $50k wagon I have heard. :rofl:


Actually, that wasn't a justification for purchasing the station wagon. It was simply one of the reasons for choosing it over a car. If I needed a justification, it would be that I will enjoy driving it much more than the minivan that it will be replacing while still offering the flexibility to carry a lot of stuff on the occasions I need to carry a lot of stuff
.


----------



## getz (Sep 21, 2007)

This is our kidhauler, long trip mobile. I really like it.


----------



## Billd104 (Aug 30, 2006)

getz said:


> This is our kidhauler, long trip mobile. I really like it.


Don"t you mean kinderwagen?


----------



## Andrew*Debbie (Jul 2, 2004)

bassholic said:


> These three vehicles were made to provide more interior space for the passengers. Outside of that is there any real difference? Does one get better Gas mileage than the other?


BMW doesn't make a van. In general its hard to beat a true van for fuel economy for a given cargo capacity.

Some of the best vans aren't sold in the US although Ford did just bring the Transit Connect to the US.

Our Vauxhall (Opel) combo van gets an honest 40mpg-US and has more cargo room than an X5. Its not even close. Our Combo van holds 97 cu ft and the X5 is about 18.5 cu ft with the seats down.


----------



## bassholic (Nov 10, 2009)

I do mean minivan and I know BMW does not make one. Feel free to insert Honda Odyssey as a reference point. I find it disgusting the plethora of options available for transportation.


----------



## Melissa (Aug 9, 2002)

bassholic said:


> I do mean minivan and I know BMW does not make one. Feel free to insert Honda Odyssey as a reference point. I find it disgusting the plethora of options available for transportation.


I have an 05 Ody and I love it. It handles fine for me, gets decent mileage and it's ridiculously practical for our four-person family. With all of the travel we do and will do with military transfers, we couldn't *not* get a van. Being short, it's also much more convenient for loading the littles. We got the better touring model and it has all the bells and whistles I wanted.


----------



## Andrew*Debbie (Jul 2, 2004)

bassholic said:


> I do mean minivan and I know BMW does not make one.


Vauxhall sells a 5 person crew van version of the Combo. Cargo capacity is the same 97cu ft. with the rear seats folded into the floor. Fuel economy is about the same too. Outside the UK, Opel sells a passenger version of the same van.

There are several other small European vans that aren't sold in the US. In passenger configuration, most of the will carry 5 and use about half as much fuel as an Odyssey.

The VW Caddy Maxi-Life seats 7, has a huge cargo capacity and can tow 3000lbs.


----------



## AzNMpower32 (Oct 23, 2005)

Vans generally have the most space but compromise a bit in driving dynamics and fuel consumption. Wagons don't compromise the driving position or fuel consumption but are a bit limited in the height context. SUVs are......a bit pointless and work mostly as a '90s trend statement.


----------



## sdbrandon (Mar 18, 2006)

AzNMpower32 said:


> Vans generally have the most space but compromise a bit in driving dynamics and fuel consumption. Wagons don't compromise the driving position or fuel consumption but are a bit limited in the height context. SUVs are......a bit pointless and work mostly as a '90s trend statement.


One could say wagons are a 1970's statement. Remember the Grand Vista Cruiser? or the Ford Country Squire? :rofl:

Seriously though, times are changing and I mock no one for choice. However, it is clear, the current consumer is driving the market in a new direction like it or not. Wagons and SUV's are being phased out in favor of more fuel efficent cross overs.


----------



## Andrew*Debbie (Jul 2, 2004)

dot.


----------



## AzNMpower32 (Oct 23, 2005)

I didn't think buying a car was to make a fashion or trend statement. As far as I can tell, crossovers are just heavier, taller wagons and that can't be good in the driving dynamics or fuel consumption department. But to each his/her own.

By the way, I wasn't alive in the '70s, although I do occasionally listen to music from then.


----------



## sdbrandon (Mar 18, 2006)

AzNMpower32 said:


> I didn't think buying a car was to make a fashion or trend statement. As far as I can tell, crossovers are just heavier, taller wagons and that can't be good in the driving dynamics or fuel consumption department. But to each his/her own.
> 
> By the way, I wasn't alive in the '70s, although I do occasionally listen to music from then.


Good or bad, weight improves ride. This is why a Rolls is heavy.

A traditional SUV gets pretty bad gas mileage. But with improvements in engines, diesels, hybrids, etc. crossover are getting mileage that rivals many average cars.

I used to think as you until I bought one. I equate the decision to purchasing an M3 over a 335d for example. Is there a middle ground in which you can have a little of everything without a huge penalty?


----------



## AzNMpower32 (Oct 23, 2005)

sdbrandon said:


> Good or bad, weight improves ride. This is why a Rolls is heavy.
> 
> A traditional SUV gets pretty bad gas mileage. But with improvements in engines, diesels, hybrids, etc. crossover are getting mileage that rivals many average cars.
> 
> I used to think as you until I bought one. I equate the decision to purchasing an M3 over a 335d for example. Is there a middle ground in which you can have a little of everything without a huge penalty?


Well, I have an X3 which some consider a crossover (based on a car platform, lower than traditional SUVs) and although it has many merits including the ability to hold my bike standing up with the front wheel removed, I would still prefer a hatchback. In a sense, it is a jack-of-all-trades and it drives well but most days, I could still have less "car".

I don't really mind the fuel consumption for my X3. It's mediocre in town but on the highway it sips fuel at just 9 l/100km (26,1 US mpg). But for fair comparison purposes:

X3 2.0d consumes 6,5 l/100km combined and emits 172g/km CO²
A 320d with the same engine consumes just 4,8 l/100km (5,4l with xDrive) and emits 140 g/km CO² in xDrive form.

Same motors. Different consumption and emissions.


----------



## Andrew*Debbie (Jul 2, 2004)

AzNMpower32 said:


> I As far as I can tell, crossovers are just heavier, taller wagons and that can't be good in the driving dynamics or fuel consumption department. But to each his/her own.


There is some hope. Lotus took a look at the US market Toyota Venza and was able to shave 38%.

Details at:

http://www.pistonheads.co.uk/lotus/default.asp?storyId=21879


----------



## getz (Sep 21, 2007)

AzNMpower32 said:


> I didn't think buying a car was to make a fashion or trend statement. As far as I can tell, crossovers are just heavier, taller wagons and that can't be good in the driving dynamics or fuel consumption department. But to each his/her own.
> 
> By the way, I wasn't alive in the '70s, although I do occasionally listen to music from then.


With the snowfall in our region, the extra ground clearance is a very nice option. Also, my wife finds it easier to load munchkins into the taller wagon. As far as driving dynamics, she is unlikely ever to take it to a skidpad, or a DE. It rides very comfortably, has ample power, and gets around 20mpg in mixed driving. Mileage isnt a huge factor for us as we only drive the vehicle approx. 8k miles per year. 
-Getz


----------

