Originally Posted by greenjp
IMO there is nothing less "manly" to use a dumb term than to evaluate your requirements and chose something (SUV) that doesn't meet them as well as another thing (minivan) over some perceived coolness factor. I have 3 kids and absent a need to go offroading a minivan is the best vehicle for the job. We chose an Odyssey mainly because of my wife's long affinity for Hondas but any of them would do the job. To settle for some midsize SUV or spend a ton more on a full size SUV to get the same amount of space would be dumb.
jeff
I can understand that motive. Define the parameters of what you want, need and expect, run it by the spouse (if needed) and be content.
I've made wiser and more practical choices than a 25 or 30 year younger version of myself would (or did). In no small part though, it's a lot to do with knowing myself better, taking a longer look down the road and thinking more big picture.
No doubt, there are car guys or girls and they will yield almost all things practical to get the style and look they want. Sometimes they can have it both ways ,,, a Sunday cruiser or the summer car. I have an 80 year old dad with a convertible Corvette in Michigan !!
Marketing plays a part too. Some of the masses are easily lead astray and some marketing helps us get want we want and need. For others, vehicles can be as much their signature or about fashion as cloths or the latest cool phone to have.
At 50, I spotted a car style I liked and had in mind, learned some about it and picked one up. It was a 6 year old sports coupe with (to me) an almost exotic silhouette, solid reputation for longevity and performance and a slight uptick for creature comforts. Doctors where I work liked mine better that their own because the early body style was just a bit more edgy. I'm not lying to say I wanted it for its style and practicality was not a box I needed checked. It had just this side of a back seat so for a 50 year-old guy to get something like that may not fit everyone's "practical meter".
For me it did rather well.
I knew what I wanted and expected and I wasn't going to be toting van or pick-up size cargo. It also worked well for back seats I'll call 'Grandkid sized'.
Was I lying to myself about function with a rwd sports car in Colorado winters ? I'd driven 'winter' for 36 years by then and put appropriate tires on it for the sketchy roads we get a few times a month here in the lowlands of 6800'. Driving it in winter can be more fun than challenge and most know it's not all about the vehicle itself. Strategy and experience play a role for many drivers. It's not necessarily a veiled threat but a chance to enjoy some spirited fun. It took me and others skiing in the mountains where winter roads can be the most fun or least depending on who's driving.
About 6 years later, I was ready for something different and true to my nature, I'd already researched and found a new target. Now I'm 2 years in, driving a Golf SW with a bit more back seat, cargo room similar to compact SUV, 4-Motion which I like to think of as assurance/insurance and a tight, responsive handling and ride character that's sporting and fun as well. It fits practical in just about every way and has the Golf heritage so tied to Car and Driver 10 Best 10 or more years running.
I freely admit if I were shopping vans, I'd look at the recent years or few of the that Pacifica. I know nothing about it aside from good press early on when it first came out but it does indeed have nice look or body style. If it were not competitive in the things we'd like or need in a van, I might have to settle for one that doesn't look as stylish.
I think about the handy-factor of vans and even pick-ups at times. To drive one daily because I might rent or borrow one every 3 to 5 years would be impractical if not silly though.
If we are happy with what we drive, whatever settling or compromises we've made, we own.
Disclaimer- I've owned 2 vans
