Posted here a while ago about car buying.

We decided to try again. We need 7 passengers - 3 rows of seating. That's a must. We would like decent mileage. We DO NOT WANT an SUV because we take the seats out of our minivan all the time to haul stuff and we need the big open space inside frequently.

There's not many minivans out there. Worse still, the ones we looked at and test drove all have the same problem.

Apparently, there's been some mandated design change for vehicles that makes the headrest come up from the back of the seat at about a 76º angle forward. These things basically shove your head forward while you sit" and they REALLY HURT my wife's neck to sit with the thing pressed on her head like that - and apparently she's not alone -

From

http://www.automedia.com/Are_Safer_Head_Restraints_a_Pain_in_the_Neck/dsm20090701hr/1

"So, what can you do about uncomfortable head restraints? First, before you purchase a vehicle, make certain you and its other intended drivers are comfortable in its seat for long periods. Consider renting a version of the car before you buy. Next, raising the head restraint to its highest position or reclining the seatback a bit more makes some vehicles more comfortable to some drivers. And that’s about it. Removing the head restraints is the equivalent of not wearing a seatbelt. Bending the head restraint posts or replacing the restraint with one from an older model is similar to modifying the seatbelt: It’s unlikely to protect you the way the car-company engineers, regulators and interest groups intended. And don’t ask anyone to do such modifications: You, or the car’s other drivers or next owner, may sue them if there’s an injury."

She literally can't sit in a vehicle with these new head restraints for more than maybe 90 seconds before her neck starts to hurt. If she tilts the seat, to get her head off the headrest, her back hurts.

The one - and only - vehicle that seemed to be almost OK was the Mazda - and the dealer says he has none, the one on the showroom floor is sold, and they aren't making them anymore. We've not been able to find a Kia dealer who stocks Kia minivans to try them. We rented a Town and Country - If you gave me $10,000 and a case of 9mm ammo to take one off your hands we'd turn you down. The Toyota Sienna can't be found around here at any price. The Honda just didn't feel right. The Volkswagen is a Town and Country for $10,000 more. The Nissan can't be found around here for a test drive, but we looked at the interior pictures and it seems to have the same harsh tilt.

I was 100% ready to buy - we actually emptied the car out and planned to drive off the lot with something last time we went out - and it looks like we're going to have to buy used again. I was actually looking forward to a new car - it's something we were planning on doing every 10 years...not really sure what to do next. Even when price wasn't an issue, we can't find anything that is tolerable for the primary driver.

I REALLY like the Ford Transit Connect (saw them in Europe a lot) but they don't seem to have a passenger configuration at all. Too bad, because I'd snap that up in a hurry.

Remember most of the crossover suv's are actually minivans so the seats may come out, Saturn vue, gmc acadia, chrysler pacifica, the new boxy ford whatever its called.

Yeah, we looked at them. With the amount of crap we haul around, it's non-starter, and the seats are WAY to hard to take out. And my wife said that the ford looked like a "ridiculous ice cream truck"

I tried to tell you before: Chevy Astro/GMC Savanah

Bigger than a minivan, smaller than a full size.

Two W-I-D-E bench seats in the back.

You can get to the back seat without folding anything down or climbing over anything.

First, about the transit connect: they do offer it in passenger configuration. The only problem though, is max seating capacity is 5. I do agree with you, it's a nice vehicle. I especially like that it's built for commercial duty with a heavy duty suspension and durable drivetrain, so I would expect the passenger version to be tough and dependable vehicle.

By any chance have you looked at the Ford Expedition? I know it's an suv, but it seats 8 and has fold flat seating, which allows for full use of the cargo area. A friend just bought one and it's great, much better seating/cargo configuration than other traditional full size SUVs or modern crossovers. I forget how the headrests were, but it's worth taking a look at.

Unfortunately, minivans are slowly fading away into history, just like station wagons. Apparently they aren't as "cool" as these new crossover suv things, so the selection is getting more and more limited. It's kind of a shame, as minivans are near perfect kid/family carriers.

Good luck in your search! Now is a good time to buy a new vehicle if you can find one you like. The deals can be pretty amazing. I was looking at a leftover f750 dumptruck for work, new mrsp was nearly $80,000....they would have sold it for $45,000 just to get rid of it.

Astro: last year made was 2005. The "Traverse" - which replaces the Astro - is not at all even close.

Savannah: Too big and ugly, does not qualify for "Clunkers" rebate. Gets WORSE mileage than the Ford we have now.

Maybe I'm utterly dense, as I'm not really a "car guy" but in late 1999 when we bought our 2000 Windstar (an utter POS, hated it all these last 10 years), it was rated at about 21 MPG highway.

10 years later, the vehicles I'm looking at get about 23 MPG. That's insane. That's not progress, that's regress.

As far as the Expedition goes - it's just so not for us. The mileage, the size, the expense - it's all so not us.

I'll be honest - the best car I ever owned was a 1983 Dodge Omni. Manual windows. No air conditioning. 35 MPG. A hatchback with a freakishly large amount of space. I loved that car. I later went to a 1995 Wrangler - again very basic, a vehicle that was reliable and simple.

I don't need 43 cup holders, 16 channel surround-sound movie systems and integral GPS. I want a structurally sound vehicle to carry people from a to b and back, not a "transportation experience".

The Kia guys haven't contacted us back yet...maybe maybe.

Have you looked at the Ford Transit Connect Van? Sort of a mid-size commercial van with full seating as an option. Sold in Europe for several years so it's not untested. Small engine, decent mileage, very straightforward and pragmatic. New here so it might be tough to find one.

Oops. Should have looked at the whole thread - my bad.

HONDA PILOT / ACURA MDX

Have owned both, and miss same.

Rear row of seats folds flat. Mid row of seats folds almost flat. These were my 5th and 6th Honda vehicles. Lowest milage Honda was sold with > 100k miles and two went > 200k with only routine service per manual.

Right after high school, I worked at a Honda dealer. Had one customer that followed the service schedule religiously.....

She had over 585K miles when I left for active duty. YES > 585,000 miles

Sorry, I missed the "new" part. It would never occour to me to buy a new car. Cash for clunkers or not, you lose something like 60% of the value in the first year. I'd rather buy a used guzzler and use the money I saved for gas.

BTW, I think I meant the Safari as the GMC equivalent.

I guess I'm just impressed by how much room they have compared to all the other cars we looked at. They are almost like some of those newer lunchbox-on-wheels types that look tiny on the outside but are big on the outside.

On the other hand, I was on the verge of going for a 12 passenger full size van to my perspective is a bit skewed.

Turns out the comparison is, if not apples to oranges, something like oranges to tangerines or tangerines to tangelos.

I don't actually know the difference between a tangerine and a tangelo. Will Google that next.

http://www.edmunds.com/advice/fueleconomy/articles/119812/article.html


Explained: 2008 EPA Fuel Economy Ratings
Lower gas mileage numbers don't mean thirstier cars

By Dan Edmunds, Director of Vehicle Testing

Date Posted 03-07-2007

Starting with 2008 models (which went on sale as early as January 2, 2007), the methodology for measuring and reporting fuel economy has been reworked to make published miles-per-gallon (mpg) ratings more accurate.

The EPA-specified testing and reporting method has not been updated since 1985. Since then, a lot has changed.

Hybrids take the biggest hit

Taken together, the higher speeds, use of air-conditioning, hot and cold temperatures and more aggressive acceleration and braking will bring 2008 ratings down. According to the EPA, city ratings will drop about 12 percent, with some losing as much as 30 percent. Highway ratings should fall an average of 8 percent, but could drop by up to 25 percent.

AH!!!

That explains a LOT. Thanks.

And the Kia guys - we'll be seeing them tonight I think.

Yea,the testing method has changed. This means a new vehicle that's listed at 22 highway, for example, would have been listed at, say, 24 on the old scale. In fact, the new scale is somewhat conservative in my experience, as my truck and my friends expedition both often exceed their listed mileage. My truck was rated at 19 highway under the new scale, and I have no problem getting 21-22.

Have you tried locating a dealer in the not so immediate area?

I did some research on the internet a few years ago and found a car two states away. I saved a significant amount of money and also cut the wait time by several months by purchasing at a dealer about 550 miles away. They picked me up at the airport, bought me lunch while they did the paper work and I drove home in a new car.

Also, my wife was reluctant to get another minivan, but it was the most practical choice so we bought her an '07 Sienna. Now she can't heap enough praise on it. The handling is soft enough that it would drive me nuts if it was my daily driver but other than that I've been very happy with it too. The wife tells me she's not giving it up even if we win the powerball. lol.

On the subject of gas mileage...

The '07 Sienna that I bought my wife had an EPA window sticker showing 19 city / 26 highway mpg. Toyota made no drive train changes from 2007 to 2008 but the testing methodology changed. The result was a window sticker on the 2008 models that show 17 city / 23 highway mpg.

Ours runs 18 to 19 mpg in town but we ALWAYS get 27 mpg or better on the highway. The highway miles are typically at 75-80 mph with the cruise and a/c on. We've topped 30 mpg on the highway on an extended trip at slightly slower speeds.

I agree about the conservative mileage ratings. I just bought a 2010 Toyota Corolla, so far I am at 37 MPG and that is combined city and highway mileage. The official rating is 28 city and 34 highway.

I do however own 2 other vehicles, both 2004 models and the mileage rating is right at the real mileage. A Chevy that gets 21 MPG highway and a Land Rover that gets around 16 MPG. So far the Corolla has not needed a fill up, although I am having a hard time adjusting to a car so low to the road

Are you opposed to Dodge Grand Caravans. We have the stow & go feature that drops the seats flush, no need to take out. Great option. The newer model comes with a swivel option but have to manually take out. Not sure if both are options right now.

The one trick with Dodge vehicles, if this is a concern and in Arizona it is, their a/c systems suck. We drove 5(?) vans all exactly the same with varying a/c ability. I literally sat in the back seat as we drove around.

My Charger has pathetic, almost non-existent air in the back for the size of the vehicle.