Yes, lots of ppl bash SUVs ... they should find the following very interesting ... Just some numbers I came across while car shopping ...

Both the following cars are 2006 models .... prices are the prices stripped, both automatics (to make it equal). You just get the basic stuff that comes with the stripped cars. Shipping NOT included:

True cost to Own (from Edmunds) after five years
MCS $41,354 SUV $38419

Cost/mile
MCS 0.55 SUV 0.51

EPA Estimated Mileage
MCS 23-32 (Premium only) SUV 21-28 (Regular)

Maximum Luggage Capacity
MCS 24 Cu. Ft. SUV 73 Cu. Ft.

 

I'm sure you're just waiting for the onslaught of responses so allow me to be one of the first. I will just say that not all SUVs are created equal. I have no problem with a RAV4... put the H2's numbers up there though and its a whole different story. But I'll take the MCS, thank you...

 

But just think about how much more stuff you can haul around in a RAV4 vice the MCS ...

and man won't it be embarrasing when a pullied or JCW MCS gets smoked of the line by this lumbering beast

Its just food for thought

 

Where is the braking distance info?

I'm not sure the size of the SUV in question, but besides, random professionals thrashing one on a skidpad does not really address the real world handling aspects, issues related to the height of the vehicle such as rolling over, blocking traffic, bad visibility, driver insulation from the world of lower vehicles, wear and tear on the roads from the gigantic ones, and the disease the owners get that makes them think they can park in compact spaces

 

Well actually the RAV4 is a tall wagon. People like to call them SUVs and they market them as such because it sounds "cool", but it's more of an economy wagon than an SUV.

 

I just saw that it was a RAV4. I'm not exactly sure what that really feels like sizewise compared to other vehicles anymore; it used to be relatively 'compact' but it is one of those sad examples of a good idea that gets larger and more bloated with each release, so I doubt it is truly compact anymore, just less huge.

 

In that case, give me a Volvo V70R, 0-60 in 5.6 seconds... You make some good points Chows but you're forgetting the fun-to-drive factor...

 

Of course, it depends on which SUV. But more importantly, what about a timed run through a slalom course? That's what separates a car like the Mini (or a Miata, etc.) not only from an SUV, but from other cars. Quick, agile handling is what it's all about, and that's not something an SUV is known for.

 

I am sure that the RAV can way outhandle the Mini in the twisties too ehhhh

It would be more intersting if they included an owner satisfaction rating for comparison. Also I didn't buy my Mini as an economy car or to haul stuff in it so there is no comparison in my eyes

 

Chowsie knows all about the fun factor, he just likes to spur "discussion".

 

Sigh. You really dont want to go there. There are many, many cars faster through the Slalom than the MCS. Times have been posted in other threads but here ya go.

2006 MCS JCW --- 66.2 MPH (R&T)

I would expect the SUV to be around 63 but there is no definitive test to be found that I can find.

As to the brake question, I cannot find definitive numbers from any road test other than Edmunds says

MCS - Excellent
SUV - Average

Bama ... no its not going to do as well in the twisties (the MCS trump card) ... its just a comparison
Clark ... Actually I think the HEMI Magnum or something like that was quick too!

 

Doesn't take number to know that that right there is the difference between hitting something or not - especially if the SUV is full of stuff making it even heavier And I never see them driving further away to allow for the crappier braking, etc...

 

Its just a comparison ... Yup, MINI got better brakes.

RAV4 kicks it butt off the line
MCS takes the twisties
RAV4 hauls more ppl and in the snow
MCS costs more to operate and own
RAV4 takes one trip to Home Depot
MCS ... it doesn't fit.

etc. etc. etc.

 

I wouldn't call the RAV4 a "traditional" SUV as it's basically a jacked up car. "Traditional" SUVs are truck based that have a body on frame design and are rear/4 wheel drive. Try to find one of those that will match the MINI!

 

BAMA ... your questioning whether Toyota Owners would buy another Toyota? That is a rhetorical question ... right?

DeLorean ... it used to be but not anymore. It used to be based on the Camry or something like that but not the new model year. Toyota says its not based on anything ... not a truck nor a car. Its fully capable of soft-roading, gravel, snow, dirt, etc but if you want to do the Rubican Trail, you need a Toyota FJ or Jeep or Land rover or whatever.

It also got a lot bigger. My RAV4 wasn't much bigger than the MINI. This thing is like 14" longer than the past ... gone from Compact Cute UTE to Intermediate.

 

Chows, if the Toyota RAV4 is such a sexy proposition, why did you trade the MCS for a Cayman??

 

Welp, the same drawbacks are there, so as someone who has 'bashed" SUVs I guess the numbers were not that 'interesting'

 

I NEVER said a RAV4 was sexy, nor did I say it was a replacement for a sporty car. IMHO, each different car can be used for different reason. Rather, I was making a virtual comparison between two totally different type of vehicles. that's all. I found it very interesting that it appears that a "SUV" is quicker than a MCS. That's all ... don't make it out to be something that I didn't say.

 

I said it would have been more interesting if they included driver satisfaction ratings for comparison.

There are many SUVs quicker than the Mini. Seeing as how they have V6's & V8's I would hope that they are faster than the Mini. To me the whole apples/oranges comparison is ridiculous. I didn't buy my Mini thinking that it had a V8, speed-demon engine in it. I bought my Mini because its personality made me smile & the handling was amazing.

The RAV doesn't make me smile To me the RAV4 is a butt-ugly hunk of metal that doesn't hold a candle to my Mini. But thanks for the valuable acceleration data so I will be sure to never challenge one to a street race for pink slips

 

We have a Mini for our Mini needs.and a SUV for our SUV needs,we are happy with both.Q

 

Let's broaden this a bit. What can haul more stuff, a MINI or a Ford Ranger. On our trip to the Dragon last spring I hauled 2 cases of beer, two backpacks, to collapsable chairs, a cooler, 2 people, to smaller bags, a MINI-spare and many smaller items. Once packed none of my windows was obscured in the slightest. Pretty darn impressive.

On the other hand, if I load my Ford Ranger full of firewood, I can't see a darn thing out the rear window. Guess I'll have to pick the MINI!

 

We have a toyota highlander also along with our MCS. The highlander is by far much quicker on the take off, but as we all know it doesn't begin to hold a candle to the twisties. My hubby and I were in seperate vehicles the other day and we were stopped at a red light, I left him on the line, of course he managed to catch up quickly and of course I have enough sense not to even try to catch him around any curves.
As for satisfaction with my suv, I have been very satisfied, we bought it in '01 and haven't had the first problem. I love our mini, but I know it will not be as pocketbook friendly as the suv. As far as gas goes in it, I get 19 - 20 city and about 24 - 26 hwy, not bad for a midsize suv.

 

Good point, clarkdr81. I had a Nissan Xterra for three years and it never gave me a moment's trouble. It never gave me wood either. MINI does!

 

Hey chows4us, go and buy the Rav if your so enamoured (enamoured: Marked by foolish or unreasoning fondness) with it. Just another box on the highway to drive around.

 

He was just stating facts!