# My parent's new Volvo XC & misc wagon talk.



## AF (Dec 21, 2001)

[email protected] said:


> *Alan, please don't take this the wrong way, but what a crock of horseshit. There is no problem with rear facing seats in the center of a 3er wagon. My wife fully reclines the passenger seat ona regular basis to entertain our daughter, and that's with our daughter in a Britax Roundabout (not the smallest seat around). If you have two rear facing seats there may be a problem, but not with one. *


Clyde .. . I'm about 5'10" and while it can be done, the wagon is on the small side . . . I can't imagine getting a rear facing seat behind me . . . like I said in my post above, I did it once in my Ci and I had to move my seat up and drive too close to the steering wheel for my taste.

MBR is the same height as I am so he would have the same problem . . . are you shorter then me ?


----------



## AF (Dec 21, 2001)

Clyde . . .also one more thing . . . the 3er is your family hauler ? 

I always thought it was your car and your wife had something else . . just curious . . .


----------



## mbr129 (Aug 23, 2002)

AF330i said:


> *The cars you are considering are very small for a baby . . . believe it or not, the first baby requires the biggest car . . . that's when most parents carry the most.
> 
> Plus you have no room in the C class or the 3er for a rear facing car seat unless you want to sit in your car uncomfortably . . . one other thing, if you do manage to get through the first child with a C class or 3er, then by the time you have the second it will be even tougher to fir the regular car seat and a rear facing car seat. I had this set-up once in my 01 330Ci and I had to move he drivers seat up and drive comfortably . . .
> 
> ...


I will be the first to admit that I know very little about car seats, etc. All I know about car seats is that my super-rich aunt had 2 for my two baby cousins (about 8-10 years ago) and they were both front-facing seats. My fiancee is 5'3" so her seat usually allows for someone behind her in the back seat to have a party. I am fully aware of what babies require as far as gear, but if you are telling me a wagon is no good for 2 kids, then I wonder what people in the rest of the world do? Sure a larger wagon may be more comfortable and roomy, but if one refrains from carrying excessive gear, it easily accommodates 2 kids. If I am going on a one week vacation, then I either use a roof-rack compartment, or swap wagons with my parent's aforementioned larger wagon.

As an example... In Peru when I was little, my dad took us to were he grew up (10+ hours) on his toyota wagon that was the equivalent of a corolla wagon. In the wagon was my father, mother, brother (13), sister (11), myself (8), and my little brother (1), and all our clothes for a week. Sure it was tight in the cargo area, but it all fit (no stroller). My mom carried my baby brother in the front seat in typical irresponsible, third-world, ignorant fashion. The car didn't even have seatbelts. And my father was the manager of operations at a petroleum company, no less, so it wasn't a money thing.

My point is, that if I can't make two infants and two adults fit in a wagon, ANY WAGON, then I am the one with problems, not the car.

That said, I am NOT ruling out the possibility of buying a larger wagon if my wife prefers it and/or logistics require it. Remember, the wagon would be mainly my wife's car, and she is 5'3".


----------



## Nick325xiT 5spd (Dec 24, 2001)

AF330i said:


> *Clyde . . .also one more thing . . . the 3er is your family hauler ?
> 
> I always thought it was your car and your wife had something else . . just curious . . . *


Buick and Altima.


----------



## ·clyde· (Dec 26, 2001)

AF330i said:


> *Clyde .. . I'm about 5'10" and while it can be done, the wagon is on the small side . . . I can't imagine getting a rear facing seat behind me . . . like I said in my post above, I did it once in my Ci and I had to move my seat up and drive too close to the steering wheel for my taste.
> 
> MBR is the same height as I am so he would have the same problem . . . are you shorter then me ? *


I'm 6'0, reasonably proportioned between legs and torso, but I do drive with teh seat further forward than most people my size. The Britax we're using now and the carrier/seat combo thing we used before won't go behind the driver seat and leave me enough room. The carrier thing did fit behind the passenger seat with enough room for my wife.

With one kid, though, the seat should be in the center. With the Britax in the center, there is no problem with room for the front seats. Your first comment was that the first baby required the biggest car, and that's what I was responding to. I also said that two rear facing seats in the back of an E46 would probably be a real problem.

We have another Britax in my wife's car (2000 Altima) and, like Nick mentioned, there is still a POS 1994 Buick (shudder) LeSabre sitting in front of my house, but I'm not sure any of us have been in it this year. The wagon and Altima are both used for family hauling type stuff. The wagon just doubles as an autocross reality check on weekends.


----------



## AF (Dec 21, 2001)

[email protected] said:


> *
> 
> With one kid, though, the seat should be in the center. With the Britax in the center, there is no problem with room for the front seats. Your first comment was that the first baby required the biggest car, and that's what I was responding to.
> *


I wasn't really being 100% serious with that remark . . . I am not sure how many chldren you have but I remember when we only had one and we would carry so much cr*p we didn't need that I can only laugh aobut it when i look back at it . . . We had the big baby bag, the 2 strollers . . . depending on which one we decided we would want, portacrib and some other stuff . . . once we had the second child that big baby bag became much smaller and we barely carried anything . . . nowadays we have basically nothing to take, no strollers, no babybags, no diapers, etc.


----------



## AF (Dec 21, 2001)

mbr129 said:


> *My point is, that if I can't make two infants and two adults fit in a wagon, ANY WAGON, then I am the one with problems, not the car.
> 
> That said, I am NOT ruling out the possibility of buying a larger wagon if my wife prefers it and/or logistics require it. Remember, the wagon would be mainly my wife's car, and she is 5'3". *


mbr, I wasn't talking about the cargo space, I was really referring to the space of the rear seat.

Beleive me if the C class was bigger I would be buying one for my wife as we speak but with kids, you need a lot of room mostly because of carseats . . . we are pretty active people and even with 2 kids, we are always using the 3 rows of seating that we have in my wife's Odyssey between kids friends, neices, nephews, etc.

The other day we were at the Mercedes dealer (we're car shopping now) and I was dying to get my wife the E320. We almost had oursleves convinced we could pull it off as far as poeple hauling but realized if we have a 3rd child, we will be out of room for anyone else.


----------



## ·clyde· (Dec 26, 2001)

AF330i said:


> *I wasn't really being 100% serious with that remark . . . I am not sure how many chldren you have but I remember when we only had one and we would carry so much cr*p we didn't need that I can only laugh aobut it when i look back at it . . . We had the big baby bag, the 2 strollers . . . depending on which one we decided we would want, portacrib and some other stuff . . . once we had the second child that big baby bag became much smaller and we barely carried anything . . . nowadays we have basically nothing to take, no strollers, no babybags, no diapers, etc.
> 
> I wasn't really being 100% serious with that remark . . . *


We've only got one (13 months) for now (and at the very least, nine more months), but I know what you're talking about. I see those parents in the parking lots and shake my head. We're not of the TD school of thought that we could raise the Brady Bunch with an old Beatle convertible as our only car, but we jsut haven't felt compelled to take a lot of stuff with us. Our sizing has gotten smaller over the past year too, but not by much. Smaller diaper bag, smaller stroller and there really isn't much else to take. Last Easter, when our girl was just six weeks old, and we made the treck to my mother in law's, I was amazed at how much we fit in the wagon. It included my brother (who we were dropping off at the airport) and all his stuff. The baby and things related to her weren't that much really...but it was also the first time we went travelling with her...we didn't really know what we needed.

I think it may be kind of like what I once heard abotu having multiple kids...If the first one drops something on the floor, you sterilize it before you let the baby get it anywhere near its mouth again. The second, you run it under the faucet for a minute or so. The thrid, you wipe it off on your shirt. The fourth, you just stick the thing in the kid's mouth. The fifth, you don't notice that it fell.


----------



## ·clyde· (Dec 26, 2001)

mbr129 said:


> *I will be the first to admit that I know very little about car seats, etc. All I know about car seats is that my super-rich aunt had 2 for my two baby cousins (about 8-10 years ago) and they were both front-facing seats. My fiancee is 5'3" so her seat usually allows for someone behind her in the back seat to have a party. I am fully aware of what babies require as far as gear, but if you are telling me a wagon is no good for 2 kids, then I wonder what people in the rest of the world do? Sure a larger wagon may be more comfortable and roomy, but if one refrains from carrying excessive gear, it easily accommodates 2 kids. If I am going on a one week vacation, then I either use a roof-rack compartment, or swap wagons with my parent's aforementioned larger wagon.
> 
> As an example... In Peru when I was little, my dad took us to were he grew up (10+ hours) on his toyota wagon that was the equivalent of a corolla wagon. In the wagon was my father, mother, brother (13), sister (11), myself (8), and my little brother (1), and all our clothes for a week. Sure it was tight in the cargo area, but it all fit (no stroller). My mom carried my baby brother in the front seat in typical irresponsible, third-world, ignorant fashion. The car didn't even have seatbelts. And my father was the manager of operations at a petroleum company, no less, so it wasn't a money thing.
> 
> ...


Rear facing seats need a lot more room than front facing. Unless you have twins, you probably won't need two rear facing seats at the same time. You can make the switch when the child is both one year old and weighs 20 lbs. Our daughter is 13 months and didn't hit 20 lbs until last week and we haven't switched yet.


----------



## mbr129 (Aug 23, 2002)

AF330i said:


> *mbr, I wasn't talking about the cargo space, I was really referring to the space of the rear seat.
> 
> Beleive me if the C class was bigger I would be buying one for my wife as we speak but with kids, you need a lot of room mostly because of carseats . . . we are pretty active people and even with 2 kids, we are always using the 3 rows of seating that we have in my wife's Odyssey between kids friends, neices, nephews, etc.
> 
> The other day we were at the Mercedes dealer (we're car shopping now) and I was dying to get my wife the E320. We almost had oursleves convinced we could pull it off as far as poeple hauling but realized if we have a 3rd child, we will be out of room for anyone else. *


That makes sense. But see, the decision is not just about kids, not just car seats, etc. I don't expect my 190E to be in good enough shape on 2-3 years for my wife to have as her primary car (whenever it is that she does use it), and being that the best car we'll have will be the ZHP without fold-down rear seats, we need a bit mroe cargo. So the car that replaces the Benz will have to cover the following functions:

1) Be my wife's car since I'll take the ZHP to work everyday.
2) Be the car we take when a blizzard hits
3) Provide a bit more cargo area for when we go on trips, skiing, etc.
4) Accommodate our first child and maybe 2nd depending when we have them.
5) Not spend too much money.

We don't want to spend too much money on it exactly because we don't know how many kids we'll have, or how quickly. So if we have it for 4 years and then we end up having 3 kids, we will just sell it and get something bigger. By the time we have a 2nd child, it may be 2008, so we will be able to change it without feeling like we got screwed with depreciation. So if 2 car seats don't fit, we'll get a different car. Simple as that.


----------



## mbr129 (Aug 23, 2002)

[email protected] said:


> *Rear facing seats need a lot more room than front facing. Unless you have twins, you probably won't need two rear facing seats at the same time. You can make the switch when the child is both one year old and weighs 20 lbs. Our daughter is 13 months and didn't hit 20 lbs until last week and we haven't switched yet. *


That was basically my point. Assuming no twins, and knowing my wife's work, we will have to have our kids spaced by at least a couple of years, which wont require 2 rear-facing seats at once. Now, we would rather have twins, so she doesn't have to take extended leaves of absence. And if that is the case, we'll get whatever we need to get. But the odds are not in our favor for twins. Nobody in either fo our families (extended included) has ever had twins, but we are still hoping.


----------



## PhilH (Jun 7, 2002)

These pics of the next generation Subaru Legacy were released today, and they show a wagon...









http://www.apexjapan.com/

A Subaru with the 6 cylinder would work well for me, giving us a moderately priced, midsize wagon with AWD, but my wife doesn't want to drive a Subaru.


----------



## pdz (Nov 17, 2002)

PhilH said:


> *These pics of the next generation Subaru Legacy were released today, and they show a wagon...
> 
> 
> 
> ...


subies are inexpensively made vehicles, so i do not blame anyone for not wanting one as their primary car.

on the other hand, with a turbo forester coming, a turbo legacy, and the STi, i feel the same strength of sentiment, but opposite: why wouldn't someone want to drive something fast and inexpensive?


----------



## AF (Dec 21, 2001)

mbr129 said:


> *But the odds are not in our favor for twins. Nobody in either fo our families (extended included) has ever had twins, but we are still hoping. *


I wonder what the odds are of having twins . . . I never even thought of this as a possilbity when my wife and I were thinking about kids . . .

Unless your on some type of medication to help your wife get pregnant I would think the possiblity since it does not run in the family is close to nil . . . but I am no doctor so what the heck do I know . . . anyone know the answer to this as far as odds ?


----------



## mbr129 (Aug 23, 2002)

AF330i said:


> *I wonder what the odds are of having twins . . . I never even thought of this as a possilbity when my wife and I were thinking about kids . . .
> 
> Unless your on some type of medication to help your wife get pregnant I would think the possiblity since it does not run in the family is close to nil . . . but I am no doctor so what the heck do I know . . . anyone know the answer to this as far as odds ? *


We have talked about this because if my fiancee decides to stay in the partnership track at her law firm, taking more than one maternity leave can really hurt your chances. She may very well decide not to be a partner anyhow, but in the event that she does, it would be nice to have two kids at once. Also, she is not particularly young, so we are planning on having our first kid when she is about 31-32, and a second a couple of years after that. If that is the case, that likely rules out a third, since it is not recommended to have kids after 35. So having twins would help in that scenario.

There is treatment that can help, but I am pretty sure it can just as well make you have triplets of quadruplets, etc, which can become a very delicate situation. So there are always risks involved.

As far as regular statistics, I have no idea. I will look it up.


----------



## uter (Jan 6, 2002)

*Twin rates*

Well, as the board's self-appointed Ob/Gyn, let me give some basic facts about twins.

Monozygotic twins, identical because they come from the same egg, have a pretty constant rate of about 4/1000 live births.

Dizygotic twins, come from two eggs because the mother ovulated two at the same time. The rates vary accross ethnic background and with age of the mother.

For women under age 20, the rate of dizygotic is about 3/1000 births. It increases as she ages, so that women age 35-40 have about 14/1000 chance of a spontaneous dizygotic twin gestation.

The wrinkle, of course, is that a very large percentage of multiple gestation pregnancies are the result of "Assisted Reproductive Technologies". In the US, we estimate that about 22% of in-vitro fertilization pregnancies are twin gestations.

Does that help?


----------



## mbr129 (Aug 23, 2002)

*Re: Twin rates*



uter said:


> *Well, as the board's self-appointed Ob/Gyn, let me give some basic facts about twins.
> 
> Monozygotic twins, identical because they come from the same egg, have a pretty constant rate of about 4/1000 live births.
> 
> ...


Of course that helps. Thanks!:thumbup:

Since as I mentioned, she will likely be 31-32, the odds are still about 1% which is a long shot. My guess is that it's a bad idea to undergo any "assitance" (especially if we can conceive with no difficulty). In other words, it is probably stupid to "try" to have twins right? Just curious. I don't want to put her or the babies at any more risk than normal.

Thanks again.


----------



## uter (Jan 6, 2002)

*Twins*

If a woman has regular periods, it's likely that she ovulates monthly. There are simple tests that can determine if a woman ovulates or not. You can even buy "ovulation predictor kits" which measure excretion of hormone (in urine) that peaks just prior to ovulation.

Couples who attempt conception on their own for 12 months have about a 95% chance of conceiving. Those that don't should seek an appt. with a doc for some basic tests (such as ruling out blocked tubes, hormonal imbalances, and male-factor infertility)

Nobody ever "tries" to have twins. The risks to the mom and infants are simply too high.

Don't worry. If your spouse is in her late 20's or early 30's, there's plenty of time.

**Wow, didn't this thread start by talking about Volvos?


----------



## mbr129 (Aug 23, 2002)

*Re: Twins*



uter said:


> ***Wow, didn't this thread start by talking about Volvos? *


Yes, it did. But you know how it is. One thought leads to another, etc. What the hell, it's MY thread, so I can hijack it.

Thanks for the info. My fiancee (we get married next year) seems healthy so a hope everything goes well when we decide to have kids in a few years.:thumbup: We'll take whatever we get.


----------



## AF (Dec 21, 2001)

In todays day and age, it is very common for women to be pregnant at the age of 35 and older . . . I wouldn't let that be a factor though I can absolutely relate to your concern

I've had them myself . . . my wife gave birth to my first child when she just turned 29 and my second at 31 . . . we are both now 34 and thinking of having another which would make my wife 35 when the time comes to give birth.


----------

