Nah, Uni-body construction. It's the Beetle convertible of trucks.

Ahem. In the heirachy of automotive gayness, the Ridgeline and Avalanche flame, by comparison the pastel Beetle convertible ripples with machismo.

Whereas, conversely, every SUV and truck I've driven has felt like, well, a brick sh!thouse going round corners. I had a brown-trouser moment a few years ago while trying to drive round a gentle curve on a highway ramp in some Ford truck thing I'd been "upgraded" to by a rental company. Where my Odyssey (proper independent suspension - MacPherson struts in front and multilink behind, which I acknowledge the 4runner has too, but many other SUVs don't) holds its line over the expansion joints without too much body movement, the truck just felt seriously agricultural - initial alarming body roll followed by hopping sideways and bouncing around all over the road.

As for size and space, I was sufficiently intrigued to do a quick Google.

For the 4runner, the cargo space (in cubic ft) behind the first/second/third row of seats is 88.8/46.3/9.0. For the Odyssey the same dimensions are 148.5/93.1/38.4. So you can be 5-up in the Odyssey and carry more than a 4runner with only 2 seats in it. And you can be 8-up (yes, it seats 8) in the Odyssey and carry almost as much cargo as 5-up in the 4runner. Not really much of a contest, is it?

I say again, for the umpteenth time: if you need interior size and space, a SUV is absolutely not, ever, the best solution. It's a design compromise to pander to some mythological minivan-cooties thing.

How so? It's a big square thing. It has lots of seats. The center of gravity is higher than the roofline of a Lotus. It's marginally more suitable for driving across a field than a Dodge Caravan but isn't likely to be used off hard surfaces where it'll perform like a leanier Dodge Caravan. It's a van. It may be a good looking van, in some eyes, but it's not functionally any different than the Caravan.

I've recently driven the Toyota Van, some Caravans and a Yukon SUV. Each offers similar interior capacity but the Yukon guzzles like a truck, an SUV feature, while the Toyota uses seat technology equivalent to the original Caravan of the eighties, by the standards of the current Caravan it's a desperately primitive thing. Given that moving lots of children and equipment around is inherently boring, there's no fun version of SUVs and vans, price and practicality should rule. That means getting the Caravan, if there are funds get something interesting as well.

Still, if you think you might have need to take ten dustbins to the dump this weekend and fetch 100 small square bales next, you might see a case for a truck. They're not supposed to be fun in terms of driving dynamics.

Oh, absolutely. If I needed a truck to cart garbage and hay, I'd buy a truck. As I need to cart kids and kid-clobber, I have a van. I mostly drive on paved surfaces and the occasional gravel road; I see no purpose whatsoever for a SUV. Come to think of it, only one of the letters in SUV is less than misleading. They're not very sporty, and not all that utile.

Wow - has no idea they had so much space However in my situation we don't need that much space but do want more than a car so an SUV does make sense.

I also personally prefer the styling of a nice SUV vs a mini bus I totally get it of course. Some people are car lovers and like aesthetically pleasing or high performance vehicles etc and for others buying a car is a functional requirement first. Not knocking either - each to their own.

Now come on - that just isn't true. The 4Runner has always been quite an accomplished off-roader - body-on-frame, high clearance, locking diff and terrain management system and has skid plates so saying it is marginally more suitable is simply ridiculous and proves you don't actually know what you are talking about

http://www.off-road.com/aimages/arti...87/Rubicon.jpg

Why not an Estate Car?

Or a shooting brake.

What is the point of a "high performance vehicle" in North America, with low speeds limits and straight roads?

That is one big truck. We struggle to transport 30 square bales in a two horse trailer, one whose internal dividing wall can be attached against the side of the trailer.

I cannot reconcile the idea of "aesthetically pleasing" and "high performance" with the concept of an SUV. Once you need more room than that provided by a sports car, you've already abandoned the quest for performance and aesthetics. Car lovers don't buy SUVs. Even the posh ones like the Cayenne or the Q7 are so vastly compromised in comparison to the alternative body styles: the enthusiastic driver would buy a Panamera or an A6 Avant instead in a heartbeat.

Fundamentally, buying an SUV (in my not-so-humble opinion) says a great deal more about how one wants to be perceived by one's neighbours than it does about one's passion for automotive excellence.

Yes I would also consider an estate (a4 all-road comes to mind) to fill the same need though again slightly on the small side for us but not wanting or needing a small bus.

Well, I ran a 1987 LC with a manual transmission for years, though rarely on the road. I believe the Four Runner to be the urbanist imitation of that vehicle so I think I know whereof I speak.

I have a field. I drive on it several times a week. I've driven a Caravan on it this year. If it's dry the Caravan, or indeed, the pastel Beetle convertible, will go across it as well as either Toyota and neither needs a tractor chugging along behind with a trailer full of jerry cans.