iaink

My buddy is 6'6". He drives a small Honda Insight hybrid in his car pool with grown ups behind him...


I suspect its not the most popular spot to get though.

carolyn_vdv

We moved to Calgary a year ago and went through the same thought process...OH was pregnant, we have a second young child, new to winter driving conditions etc and an SUV was what we set our sights on.

We ended up with an Acura MDX (which I think is a Honda basically) because it was the one the OH preferred. It met all our requirements:
1. Seems a popular car so potentially good resell
2. Has a 3rd row of seats (we thought this would be good to fit us and visitors in one car)
3. Others I spoke to who own one had good things to say
4. It is an SUV and we figured it would fare better in a fender bender than a regular car
We put winter tyres on before the first snow so I couldn't comment on whether its handling is any better, although a cradle relative who has driven on all seasons (in his coupe) for years tried winter tyres for the first time and said there was a remarkable difference.

Our fuel economy is around 12l/100km. Most engine sizes of SUV's I have seen are over 3l - the MDX is 3.6 or 3.7 (the Cherokee can come in a 5.6l), I think the fact the engines are generally larger may have something to do with the altitude?

The downside:
1. I like the MDX but it is a bit more expensive than other similar SUV's. If I had to start again I would probably have opted for a Hyundai (Santa Fe or Vera Cruz). To me they do the same and are cheaper.
2. The 3rd row of seats is a joke, you lose all your boot space when they are up, so really apart from being able to pile everyone in to go for a short trip with no luggage it is not that practical. There is no legroom in the 3rd row so only a child could possibly be comfortable. If you are looking for this extra space for the (possibly) odd time you have visitors I would go for a people carrier (Dodge Caravan, Toyota Sienna, Honda Odyssey etc) which are very popular on the roads. Mazda also make a nice looking SUV (CX-7 and CX-9), the CX-9's third row of seats can be adjusted to give more space but you still have the boot space issue.
3. There are a lot of regular cars on the road, and as previous posters have mentioned the road clearance is good (apart from in the actual communities where it can be a bit hit and miss) so from a price, fuel consumption point of view a sedan will be our 2nd car when we get round to buying one.

Other than the MDX we considered the following SUV's:
Honda Pilot, Hyundai (as above), Kia Sorrento, Jeep Cherokee (I like the look of the new one, but pricy. It can alternate between 8 and 6 cylinders for better fuel economy, and has some funky offroad gadgets which would probably never get used). Mazda (as above), Ford (Edge/Escape)...basically each manufacturer has one.
I think there is little difference between all the crossover SUV's so it probably boils down to what you like the look of and its price...I imagine those that really know their stuff would probably stay clear of all these types of cars.

At the end of the day we would probably buy an SUV again as a primary car, as it does give some extra luggage capacity (2 prams and shopping quickly fill up the space), you have a sense of extra safety, the extra height is good too. There is also the potential towing capacity (for a small trailer/camper etc) which is also something we are considering when the kids get older.

Jingsamichty

Er, no. North America goes all the way down to sea level, especially at the edges, and they have the same engines.

iaink

Its simply the "Aint no replacement for displacement" mentality.

carolyn_vdv

Really, gosh I didn't know that. I thought Canada was all at +1000m above sea level. Just like we all live in igloo's

Okay, the engine size thing may be a misunderstanding on my part, but octane levels in petrol change from sea level to altitude...

Jingsamichty

No they don't.

Tuppence

My husband is 6'5". The worst things for space behind him when he's driving were SUVs.

You can never really tell until you sit in it. We had a Nissan Altima when we first arrived (sedan). It was massive inside.

iaink

Octane ratings for premium, regular, super etc do change, they sell lower octane ratings at higher altitude locations. Something to do with compensating for the reduced amount of oxygen and relative compression ratings at altitude to prevent pinging or something.

Its something turbo car owners whine about as they get reduced HP from their "premium" fueled cars, premium at altitude is a couple of octane points lower than premium in say Ontario.

Not that that really has anything to do with picking a car...

Jingsamichty

I know that the same fuel perfoms less efficiently at altitude, but as you say, that's to do with the air.

North American large engine sizes are down to preference, and a cultural misunderstanding that bigger = better.

iaink

From what I read they reduce the octane ratings at the pumps at altitude too to prevent knocking, so its a double whammy. Maybe its just the US mountain states?

Secam

This is my favourite site for car research:

http://usnews.rankingsandreviews.com...rankings/cars/

It's an aggregate of many journalist reviews, which tends to minimize the individual bias of a single journalist. If they all agree that it's good, its probably worth looking at. It also takes into account safety ratings.

It's also a handy way of seeing all the competition in a specific category.

iaink

Except that seems to be US market vehicles.

For canada specific info I like this, although the pricing on the older used car reviews does not keep "up to date" as far as I can see.
http://www.autos.ca/

Jingsamichty

How? What? The fuel is as delivered from the refinery. It can't be "reduced" at the pump?

Although (for example) 91 RON fuel might, at altitude, only perform to the equivalant of 87 RON due to the thinner air/reduced compression.

I don't know if refinery-produced 91 RON fuel would actually be labelled as 87 RON fuel at altitude. If so, I stand corrected.

iaink

No, you arent getting it, I guess I didnt phrase it very well. Regular on the coast is 87, but in Colorado its 85. Super on the coast is 93, but in Colorado its 91 etc. WRX owners moan that they cant get super premium 94octane in the mountains, its different, lower octane fuel delivered at the pumps.

Maybe this is US only, I dont know, but that's how its reported to be there, the gas companies sell reduced octane ratings to prevent pinging in part due to the lower oxygen content and in part due to the effect of the reduced air pressures at altitude altering the effective compression ratios.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Octane_...nal_variations
http://www.clubwrx.net/forums/high-a...de-octane.html

Jingsamichty

Understood. Sounds like a bigger engine is the answer.