[Chevy Suburban]

If your favorite of the 3-row SUVS is me, The Suburban, quote this post. Go on. Do it.

 

[F14CRAZY]

You left off the storage capacity of the roof as well. Sadly, you will have to stay after school with me to learn how to consider all aspects of word problems.

Well if you had a 3/4 ton Suburban with a class IV hitch you could load the seats with passengers, the cargo area, the roof, and tow a XX x XX enclosed trailer

 

[Dr.Show-Me]

I currently have a Suburban and I only average 1 mpg less than I did with my 08 Acadia driving either in the city or highway. The Suburban is so much better in people/cargo capacity. When I traveled with the family to the cabin using the Acadia, I was forced to pack every inch of the vehicle with something. The Suburban is so much better, always have plenty of extra space. Plus the additional towing capacity is a big plus, and I prefer having the ability to switch between 2 and 4wd. We will always have a Suburban around.

A Suburban wouldn't fit in my garage, but my Tahoe fits just fine. Although less cargo space than the Sub, it too is a superior vehicle, the only downsides being large blind spots and mediocre mileage. I average 18.2-18.3, and can go 500 miles on a tank, but I wish it got in the 20s. Maybe the next-gen SUVs will get 20+mpg.

 

[Avalanche13]

Someone needs to tell the insurance companies there is a difference. My lease is up in 5 months. I've been looking a different cars. I dropped by my agent's office to ask for an estimate of where my rates would be. A Ford Escape and a Chevy Camaro would cost me the same on auto insurance every six months. I asked why. I was told it has to do with "sport" car and "sport" utility vehicle. I was scratching my head because an Escape is basically a jacked up Focus wagon.

The answer they gave you is BS. Insurance rates are based on risk. Risk can include how cheap the vehicle is to fix if its damaged, how likely the vehicle is to be damaged, how much damage it will do to other vehicles, etc. Then the driver is factored in (age, gender, driving record) as is the area where the vehicle is registered (city means higher risk of accident than suburb). The vehicle part can surprise you. It would be cheaper to insure a Suburban than a Cruze for example. It's also cheaper to insure a Corvette than a Civic.

Here's State Farm's Vehicle Rating information if you'd like to see the relative risk involved.
http://learningcenter.statefarm.com/auto/vehicle-rating.html

 

[Michael_S]

Let me pad out the list with prices and alternatives for anyone that doesn't need to tow and who doesn't need winter performance beyond what stability control and snow tires can provide:

full size vans - it's hard to find exact specs, but for example the Nissan NV passenger van has four rows of seats. If you take out the fourth row it's got seating for 8, and 57.1 cubic feet of cargo area, $32,000
The cargo area cubic feet of capacity for an Econoline 150 passenger van with the fourth row of seats removed is not listed, but for example a Suburban's total cubic feet of interior cargo capacity is 137 cubic feet, the Econoline regular length is 236 cubic feet, the Econoline extended length is 276 cubic feet. The GMC Savanna and Chevy Express have similar numbers. A big Sprinter van has a 318 cubic feet maximum cargo capacity. The Ford Transit full size van on sale outside the US is available from the length of a midsize sedan to almost 22 feet long, with a maximum cargo capacity of 505 cubic feet.
45.8 cubic feet, Cadillac Escalade, $66,000+
45.8 cubic feet, Chevrolet Suburban, $42,000+
45.8 cubic feet, GMC Yukon XL, $44,000+
42.6 cubic feet, Ford Expedition EL, $43,000+
42.6 cubic feet, Lincoln Navigator L, $58,000+
39.0 cubic feet, Toyota Sienna, $27,000+
38.7 cubic feet, Honda Odyssey, $29,000+
37.1 cubic feet, Nissan Quest, $26,000+
33.0 cubic feet, Chrysler Town & Country, $30,000+
33.0 cubic feet, Volkswagen Routan, $27,000+
33.0 cubic feet, Dodge Grand Caravan, $20,000+
32.2 cubic feet, Kia Sedona, $25,000+
24.4 cubic feet, Chevrolet Traverse, $30,000+
24.1 cubic feet, GMC Acadia, $34,000+
23.3 cubic feet, Buick Enclave, $38,000+
21.0 cubic feet, Ford Explorer, $29,000+
20.0 cubic feet, Ford Flex, $31,000+
20.0 cubic feet, Nissan Armada, $40,000+

(Edit) My original comments came across as insulting, let me rewrite.

I understand getting a crossover or fullsize SUV or anything else because it looks cool. If that fits your budget, go for it.

But if it doesn't fit your budget, or if you care more about being practical than about looking good, try a van.

 

[Ed753]

I'm surprised that the Traverse's cargo space is larger than the Explorer's. With the raised rear floor and no well to store the 3rd row seats, it looks smaller than the Ford's, but I guess not.

The thing is that with GM they make large vehicles that are deceptive. They are large but drive so smooth you hardly notice anything and sometimes forget what you are driving and the cargo space is huge but you won't realize it until you are focused on it. That's one thing GM is the best in the world at no questions.

While I'm not sure about the driving dynamics between these two, as I've never driven them back-to-back, visibly there is little doubt, the Traverse with its big-rear-end, looks absolutely enormous, I'm actually surprised storage is ranked so close, the Traverse W/B is + 6.3" and overall length is + 7.9" compared to the Explorer.

 

[CADILLACSIXTEEN]

I cannot believe the Armada has less room than the Ford and GM crossovers.... thats TERRIBLE... for Nissan. O well...

 

[Butz]

The Nissan is badge engineered too, but the Infiniti version doesn't sell and the Patrol isn't sold here.

Is the Patrol-based QX doing worse than the Armada-based one did? The Armada has been around for 8 years, GM will update its fullsize SUVs again before Nissan touches the Armada, it seems like. I guess they just gave up.

 

[cdp326]

Is the Patrol-based QX doing worse than the Armada-based one did? The Armada has been around for 8 years, GM will update its fullsize SUVs again before Nissan touches the Armada, it seems like. I guess they just gave up.

I think it's doing about as well. 2011 was actually its highest year for sales, and I believe it's the third-best-selling luxury large SUV behind the Mercedes GL-Class and Escalade lineup.

 

[Avalanche13]

Let me pad out the list with prices and alternatives for anyone that doesn't need to tow and who doesn't need winter performance beyond what stability control and snow tires can provide:


(Edit) My original comments came across as insulting, let me rewrite.

I understand getting a crossover or fullsize SUV or anything else because it looks cool. If that fits your budget, go for it.

But if it doesn't fit your budget, or if you care more about being practical than about looking good, try a van.

To add to your comment, the GM fullsize vans are available with AWD for bad weather driving and they can tow just like a Suburban can. The downsize of an Express vs a Suburban is in the way it drives. The Suburban is quicker, handles better, rides better, etc.