The Utility Envelope
It occurred to me a while back that there's another "envelope" we take into account in our automotive purchasing decisions. Let's call it the "utility envelope." I've had some ideas about what "utility" is and how it affects car buying (and car design) bouncing around in my head for a while, and I'd like to try and set them down in HTML and see what the rest of you all think. I don't know how original my insights are, and I'm wide open to critique.
So let's have at it.
- Seating capacity -- Obviously, the more people you can fit comfortably in a vehicle, the more useful it is.
- Trunk space and cargo capacity -- The more stuff you can carry, the more useful the vehicle is. Also, for most people in most circumstances, enclosed cargo space is more useful than an open bed.
- Towing capability -- A vehicle that can pull a trailer has a greater cargo capacity than one that can't.
- Bad weather and rough-road/off-road capability -- A vehicle that can handle snow, dirt roads, and open country can go more places than one that can't. In this context, all-wheel drive is more useful than two-wheel drive.
- Range -- The farther a vehicle can go, the more useful it is. We sort of touched on this in our recent discussions of internal combustion engines, electric cars, and the EV-1.
- Reliability and maintenance -- This is what they sometimes call a "threshold variable"--a vehicle has to have some minimum level of reliability, because a car that won't start has no utility at all. A vehicle that requires frequent, complex maintenance (scheduled or otherwise) is less useful than one that doesn't. (Insert British sports car joke here.) However, beyond some minimally-acceptable point, increases in reliability or decreases in maintenance requirements (e.g. 7,500-mile vs. 5,000-mile oil changes) don't have any real effect on the utility envelope calculation.
- Top speed -- In this context, it is a threshold variable. Freeways have a minimum speed requirement, usually 40 MPH; a vehicle that can't get up to 40 MPH is therefore restricted as to what roads it can legally travel on, and is less useful than one that is not so restricted.
- User-friendliness -- Again, something of a threshold variable. A vehicle that requires special skill to operate, or has some sort of unusual and inconvenient starting sequence (like the old Stanley Steamers, which took 10 minutes to "warm up" to operating pressure) or non-standard control layout, or really tricky driving dynamics, is at a utility disadvantage compared to, oh, say, a current-generation Honda Civic.
Now that we have our definition established, what can we say about the "utility envelope?" I'd suggest a reasonably self-evident corollary proposition: at the extremes, there's an inverse relationship between the performance envelope and the utility envelope. A supercar like the Lexus LFA or Bugatti Veyron or SSC Ultimate Aero, or even something relatively restrained like the Esprit or Testarossa, may have an epic performance envelope, but its utility envelope is barely big enough for two human beings and a laptop. On the other hand, ever seen a 0-60 time quoted for a Dodge Power Wagon?
Want to max out your utility envelope? Large seating capacity, large cargo capacity with easy access, stone-axe reliablity, capable of freeway speeds, utterly benign driving dynamics--well, look no further than what's parked at your local soccer field. As my colleague David Drucker once put it, "A Minivan is Better Than What You're Driving"--in utility-envelope terms, anyway.
So, what do you think? Am I leaving anything out, or should any of the elements of the definition be changed? Any other corollaries you can think of? Hit the comments box below and let me know.Oh, one last thing. Always remember: no matter how much you push the envelope, it'll still be stationery.
--Cookie the Dog's Owner
David Drucker on February 05, 2010 at 05:33 AM
I'd add one item to the matrix: extensibility. This wasn't a factor when cars were just cars, I'm talking about the cars about which a generation -- my parents' generation, in fact, but thankfully not my parents specifically -- of buyers would eschew power windows as being "just something else that will need to be fixed."
Maybe they were right, but the fact was that if a power window broke it *could* be fixed. And so could a radio, or even -- gasp! -- an air conditioner.
Now let me ask you some questions: How old is the computer on which you're reading this? How many have you owned before you got this one. And what will you do when it breaks?
The vast majority of you will probably answer "pretty new," "quite a few," and "buy a new one."
The level of computer intervention and control in today's cars is pretty staggering by any standard. I'm not going to rail against things CPU-guided ABS, traction control, or even stability control. (Never mind that 99 percent of the time they'd be rendered unnecessary by better driver training. And yes, I made that number up.)
On the other hand, integrating a multitude of functions -- climate, sound, navigation, adaptive cruise, suspension, transmission shift program, et al -- into a single control center seems to me to be sheer folly. In the first instance, the steep learning curve (i-Drive, anyone?) means that the primary driver will be seriously distracted much of the time, and secondary drivers will simply give up. The original owners -- usually leasers, I'd bet -- won't be burdened by the high cost of repairs and software upgrades, for they'll be covered by warranty.
The used car buyer, by contrast, will be plunged into a nightmare not experienced since the Jaguar XKE became just another used car, in the late sixties and early seventies. At that time you could buy one for lunch money, but the repairs... my oh my!
So, extensibility. If you're buying new, who cares. It's the factory's problem, at least until trade-in time. Then, you might or might not take a hit, depending on how much all of that technology has contributed to the depreciation hit. If you're buying used, though, extensibiliy is a real issue.
You used to be able to buy a five-year old Lexus LS sedan and count on another ten years of trouble-free operation and reasonable maintenance (and even repair) costs. I'd be reluctant to recommend the same tactic today. There's just too much going on. And I'll say the same thing about a current fully tricked-out Ford Fusion. Sync might be cool today, but in five years it'll be just another outdated computer that's not working the way it should, and is too expensive to fix.
Jeez, how did this turn into a rant?
Anthony Cagle on February 05, 2010 at 08:06 AM
Interesting. I was thinking about this during my foray into electric cars and the comments about them. I was thinking more in terms of maybe not en envelope but maybe the other way around, the minimal utility. I suspect something like the Tesla may end up working in your supercar category eventually because it really has lousy utility, but really superb performance. You can throw out numbers all day long about average miles/trip people make, average time between trips, etc., to make a case for people buying a 6-mile-range electric car, but the bottom line is that unless it fills out a minimal utility envelope (utility baseline?), a large number of people aren't going to buy it. Someone has to have done research on this. . .
I also find the performance envelope rather fascinating. SUVs, sports cars, same thing: a lot of people buy a lot more function than they're ever actually use.
davidt on February 05, 2010 at 08:17 AM
It might be worthwhile to include gas milage.
Cookie the Dog's Owner on February 05, 2010 at 08:32 AM
Anthony: I really appreciate your comment about "minimal utility." I've been batting around some similar ideas, and I think there's a case to be made that people purchase a car to meet their maximum foreseeable need, which may be a lot larger than average need. For instance, here in the lake effect snow belt, a lot of people spring for 4WD SUVs. We may get only five or six really memorable snowfalls a year, but when one comes along, that 4WD and high ground clearance really comes in handy.
David Colborne on February 05, 2010 at 09:00 AM
Drucker: I'm an IT Director. I deal with computers for a living. You want to know a little secret?
Most "broken" computers aren't broken.
I'm serious. When most people say their computer is "broken" and it's time for a new one, it's either because there's a piece of software out there they want to install that their current computer can't handle (a game, usually) or the computer caught a virus and they don't want to deal with it. If you don't know how to clear a virus off your computer and the kid at your local big box electronic retailer says it'll cost over $200 to get it taken care of, well, shoot, if you're spending that much anyway, why not just double down and get a new computer? In reality, though, there's nothing wrong with the hardware of the computer - it's just the software that got corrupted.
Now, let's look at a car computer. It's not going on the Internet or talking with other computers (usually), so that leaves viruses out of the picture. It probably has fewer moving parts than a regular computer - no fans and no hard drives. So, that just leaves some temperature-related issues against the components (how will the capacitors respond when it hits -30F?) and some jostling while driving, and, by this point, I think most manufacturers have figured out how to minimize any problems caused by those sorts of things.
Honestly, I don't see any serious detriment over using computers over using some of the mad electrical systems I've seen in older cars. Go ahead - troubleshoot an electrical short in a Fiat. I dare you. It can't be done!
David Drucker on February 05, 2010 at 10:44 AM
Colborne: My own experience with computers is in the journalism area: I started reviewing hardware and software in the Kaypro era, and continued to do so until just a few years ago. All of your points are well taken, save perhaps the one about car computers not going on the Internet. They don't now, but absolutely will in the future, and I'm betting on the near future. I'm not talking about making the web available to the driver -- although that will certainly happen one way or the other. Rather, I envision connectivity as being a way for updates to be applied without the need for a dealer visit.
And if a car can be made to go on line for good, it can be made to go on line for evil. If I were writing viruses I'd forget about home PCs and figure out how, for example, to make all of those keyless ignition systems stop working. And if I really wanted to create chaos, well, it doesn't take much imagination to extrapolate from here. Talk about immediate gratification!
But on a more benign level, let's look back at early examples of hard disk based audio servers, factory-installed navigation, and voice activated *anything* at all. Their operation was iffy, at best, when new, and their integration with the vehicle makes upgrading difficult, at best.
And, finally, I fully agree that software, not hardware, is often the problem with older computers. And software is the problem with computers in cars. I follow another car site's long term road test blog, and am amazed at how often they report a computer-based glitch that required a trip to the dealer to rectify. Then again, I shouldn't really say "amazed," given that it's just the sort of thing I'd expect to be happening.
Theodore on February 05, 2010 at 09:39 PM
So utility = boring?
Somebody mentioned fuel economy; I'll also throw in maneuverability and ease of parking. Watch an urban assault vehicle try to parallel park some time. Hours of fun. But my Miatas fit anywhere.
jjd241 on February 06, 2010 at 04:04 AM
Thats why you have the "garage envelope" too. You need enough space to park: a minivan for those 7 passenger trips, a power wagon for towing and 4x4 required conditions, and a "name your two seater" for hooning. And don't forget the various toys that need to be towed...
salguod on February 07, 2010 at 03:49 PM
Amen to this post. A minivan is the answer to most family's vehicular questions. It nails most of your criteria:
* Seating capacity - Comfy seats for 6 adults (I've taken 6 adults from Columbus OH to Chicago for a weekend in my Odyssey with no complaints) and you can carry 7 or 8 in a pinch.
* Trunk space and cargo capacity - 4x8 sheets of plywood? Check. Full sized sofa? Sure. Family of 5, camping gear and 4 bikes? Yep.
* Towing capability - Properly equiped, most minivans will pull a decnt 3,500 lbs. That comment on camping gear and 4 bikes above> I was pulling my 2,200 lb pop up too. Through the mountains of WV.
* Bad weather and rough-road/off-road capability - This is the only item on your list where minivans don't shine. Toyota makes an AWD mode, but otherwise you're limited to ABS and traction/stability control.
* Range - 20 gal tank and 22-23 MPG hwy get's me ~450 miles on a tank.
* Reliability and maintenance - My Odyssey is approaching 200K, still riding on it's original struts and only recently had any suspension components replaced (tie rods, a cv joint, etc). The transmission has been a weak point, but Honda has stepped up to the plate on that and paid for the repairs. Still feels and drives at about 85% of what it did when I bought it at 40K.
* Top speed - Not a minivan strong point, but in terms of what you need a vehicle to do, no complaints.
Other vehicles are strong in an area or two, none shines across the board like a minivan.
User-friendliness
David Colborne on February 07, 2010 at 10:12 PM
Drucker: I would personally hope that manufacturers would be smart enough to keep mission-control systems offline and keep the Internet-connected equipment disconnected from the rest of the system, save for voltage draw and a display. Then again, I've seen what some manufacturers do, and I do agree that I probably shouldn't bet on it.
Theodore: Utility is just one of the vertices on the triangle. The triangle, at least in my mind, would have three vertices - utility, performance, and economy. You can have an economical performance car, but it's not going to have as great of performance as something less economical. A Miata would be a decent example of the former, while a Lotus Exige would be a fine example of the latter. You can also have a practical (high utility) car that also gets decent performance - certain SUVs would be decent examples of this. Then you have cars on the extreme edges of all three. A large minivan, for example, would have high utility but not much else - it would be rather expensive to get into because of the gadgets (DVD players, satellite radio, tons of seating, etc.) and wouldn't be particularly interesting from a performance standpoint. A Chevy Aveo is extremely economical but has low utility and performance. A Dodge Viper would have high performance but little else. A Camry, meanwhile, would probably sit in the middle of the triangle - it has OK performance (especially when the throttle is stuck - zing!), is fairly economical, and has decent utility, but is easily surpassed on all three fronts by other, more specialized vehicles.
Now, which is better? Depends on your needs. I need a back seat, so veering too far into the performance corner won't work for me. I'm also cheap (poor?), so veering too far away from the economy corner won't work for me. Consequently, a minivan won't work too well for me - they're just too expensive to get into and they use too much gas for my needs. At the moment, I have absolutely zero need for the ability to haul six children, and my need to haul large objects is limited and sporadic at best. Station wagons would be decent for me. Even an economy hatchback would work, like a Fit or something similar, at least until my kids get old enough to outgrow the tiny back seats.
Your mileage, quite literally, may vary.
Steve H on February 08, 2010 at 06:29 AM
Interesting discussion.
I'd add that larger size/capacity isn't always win-win. There are tradeoffs with a larger vehicle that often include gas mileage, more expensive parts (e.g., tires), and parking.
Also, when taking capacity into account, the configuration matters: regular trunk, hatchback, open bed, etc. Several people I know thought a pickup would be perfect for them until they found that they didn't want to carry their groceries in the open bed during rain or crawl six feet under a bed cover to get whatever item had slid forward after driving around.
I'm excited about the growing segment of small vans (mini-minivans? What gets called a minivan today isn't so mini), including the Mazda 5, Kia Rondo, the upcoming Ford C-Max, etc. They have great packaging efficiency and flexibility. The fuel economy could be a little better on some of them, but they're still not bad considering what they do.
Steaming Pile on February 08, 2010 at 07:10 AM
So I guess a Blue Bird school bus (or a military five-ton truck) is more useful than a subcompact hatchback. Just don't expect to be able to parallel park the thing. There is such a thing as excess capacity - if you have utility that is never used, is it really useful? As the GMC Truck people said once, it's more than you're used to, but it can also be more - way more - than you need, and why pay for something you will never use?
I drive an itty-bitty hatchback. Since I don't own a boat, or a snowmobile, or go off-roading, or anything like that, it's got plenty of utility. I can open the back, drop the back seats, and throw ten bags of mulch in there with room for some shrubberies. People would watch me do this at Lowes with genuine curiosity. Will this guy be able to close the hatch? Yes. He will. My little car does what I ask it to do for about $15 worth of gas a week. I'd say I get plenty utility for my $15.
And yes, if I had a herd of young-uns, I'd probably have a minivan of some sort, probably a legacy Dodge Caravan with the 2.5L four-banger and rust holes I can kick soccer balls through. Gotta have something to do on weekends.
David Starr on February 08, 2010 at 07:14 AM
The current limited array of vehicles (sedans, minivan/SUV, sports car,station wagon,pickup truck) could be extended, new types invented. Back in the distant past Detroit made just one kind of car, a full sized six passenger sedan. We got sports cars in 1953. Station wagons were not invented until 1955, compact cars in 1959, pony cars in 1964, and finally minivans in the '80s. Each new car type earned a lot of money for their maker.
How about some new car types? Say an urban minihauler. Very small car that somehow (roof rack, hatch back, removable top, something) opens up enough to take sheet rock from the lumber yard and furniture from the auction. Doesn't have to be weatherproof in hauling mode, and it doesn't have to go far or fast, but it does have to do it.
How about a skier's car? Long enough to accept skis INSIDE, with front wheel drive, 500 mile range on a tank, limited slip differential, anti skid brakes, and big, big tires to give traction on hard packed snow. Plus wiper washers fore and aft and on the headlights too. And an out side thermometer.
How about a single guy's commuter car? Two seats, and enough cargo space for a weekend's luggage, or a week's groceries and a couple of cases of beer, and styling hot enough to attract attention?
Or??
Then for any car, how about sockets in the roof to accept a removable roof rack for skis, bikes, lumber, extra luggage. Right now the Thule racks will stay on the car, but they dig into the paint.
MikeinAppalachia on February 08, 2010 at 07:35 AM
Gee, I guess my 1949 Plymouth station wagon must be a lot rarer that I thought?
Calandman on February 08, 2010 at 07:43 AM
You might want to include vehicle safety as a factor. I think it is very important and more important than something like gas mileage that is often overemphasized. Good gas mileage is a nice plus but survivability in case of a serious crash far outweighs some savings at the pump. We have 4 kids who are in various stages of learning to drive so it is even more of a worry. And even if that wasn’t the case we wouldn’t be driving any of the smaller, lighter vehicles as heavier vehicles simply afford better protection and overall usefulness.
comatus on February 08, 2010 at 07:46 AM
Whence came this madness that one should have just one vehicle, intended to do a little of everything? Is this the ultimate consequence of monogamy, or monotheism? Here's news: cars are not spouses, or gods. You can have as many as you can keep running.
I have a performance car, two "antiques," a dump truck, and an ex-military 6X6. Other members of the family have a minivan, a pickup, a Caddy, and a Wrangler. We're feeling the lack of a two-seater, but other than that, we are just about set.
Seldom are two of them in use at the same time. Although I do take the deuce out for ice cream from time to time, I just can't see thrashing the van through some short-twisties; my truck is clean and rides nice, but I don't take it to the opera.
kenny heggem on February 08, 2010 at 07:50 AM
With the exception of towing, I find the two vehicles in my fleet fit the format of utility and fun well.
The Sprint Turbo's only lower mark would be a 3000 mile oil change necessary to keep the turbo running well into 200k or more.
45 MPG makes up for the more frequent oil change.
Both seat 4 comfy, the 92 VW GTI can squeeze 5 (seat belts for all).
The GTI 16v get's an acceptable 29 MPG high way, 25 around town.
Fold the seats and two ten speeds in the back of Sprint with some loss of front leg room. I have carried massive amounts of camping and DJ gear in the GTI...thing is practically a truck with the seats down.
The cool factor is there. People in the know communicate with me all the time about both cars. Watercooled VW freaks and people amazed to see a Sprint Turbo around.
deadman on February 08, 2010 at 07:51 AM
Mercury Marquis/Crown Vic/LTD
I can carry 8 foot 2x4s inside. The trunk is big enough for three bodies. 5 people comfortably for a long trip or 6 around town. Easy access to kids in car seats. Dirt cheap to maintain and east to repair. Decent range 400+ (20gal 22mpg). I've had them off-road many times - real rough stuff with no paths. Can pull a real load.
OldCarGuy on February 08, 2010 at 08:13 AM
I am a huge fan of utility, and the 2000 Suburban 1500 that I have been driving for 6 years now has served me very well. I regularly tow with it, it serves as both a people hauler, and with the rear seat removed, a dogs and gear hauler. I've owned over a dozen vehicles, and it has been the most reliable of them all, surprisingly so. I don't use the 4WD often, but when I do it does the job. It's very comfortable on the highway.
Do I drive it everywhere? No, the Honda gets better mileage and it's more fun. But when I need utility, in the Burb I have it in spades.
Austin on February 08, 2010 at 08:44 AM
Funny you using the aviation utility envelope. I'm an aircraft owner and pilot who uses my airplane to get to work. (don't think I'm wealthy I have two old beat up cars and one old beat up airplane instead of two new cars...). Anyway this is something we frequently consider in aviation, but we never want to be honest with ourselves..Many pilots start the conversation off with "I need a single seat aerobatic airplane because..." while they have kids sitting in the hanger asking to go to lunch. We are usually brought down to reality when we consider the mission profile. If we take the utility of a super performance sports car in the speed category, vs it's mission profile of driving on US roads, we can quickly see that a large portion of that car's performance doesn't fit the mission profile, and in fact is adding expense and time in service for a level of performance it's basically illegal to tap into. So what is the average driving and use of the vehicle going to be 90-100% of the time for 90-100% of car owners? Moving family and family-related stuff from point A to point B over city terrain, suberbian terrain and some small portion of rural terrain in all weather conditions. And heck throw in some light construction for maintaining the house. I'd think the two vehicles that meet this criteria are minivans and SUV's. Why the SUV? Because with city driving ground clearance equals safety (in escape routes you are able to take) and ability to move from point A to point B over a wider range of obstacles. I lived for several years in San Francisco and after 8 months of driving around in a civic, denting rims, scraping my fenders and generally being stuck behind accidents and construction zones, I bought a Nissan Xterra. I've routinely driven over medians, or off of curbs if it gives me an increase in visibility and safety. Ground clearance has many more uses than simple "off road driving" of which we all know few people do. Taking this into consideration I'd say the typical SUV like a Toyota 4Runner beats out the minivan. Add to this the conventional construction of a good SUV (i.e. truck frame) and you have a tougher vehicle for loading weekend construction projects, a safer vehicle in inclement weather (not that I want to get into the AWD vs. 4WD debate) and the always available option of driving off of the road, which is just nice to have on hand.
Anyway for some portion of the population these aspects of the utility envelope will fit for them. For others the cost in gas mileage, ride noise and maintenance of a conventionally built 4wd vehicle won't fit their mission profile, but both the minivan and the SUV have large envelopes per dollar and both can get by in a pinch, barring the ground clearance limit of the minivan. So the SUV "expands the envelope" as they say, farther than the minivan does, at a small expansion of cost.
That Car Guy on February 08, 2010 at 08:44 AM
It's great that we have such a wide choice of vehicles to "customize" to fit our own needs these days. The number of people we will haul vs. cargo is critical in deciding a personal utility vehicle, in my opinion. Personal Utility Vehicle (PUV)? Have I just named a new segment here? LOL
But not everybody is so open-minded. My father believed that all pickup trucks should be full-sized, have a standard cab, and an 8-foot bed. After all, you will need to carry big stuff back there some day. And 3-across seating on a slick vinyl slab? It made perfect sense to him.
He would cringe to see my Super Crew with 4 doors, heated front bucket seats, remote start, a sunroof, and a 5.5-foot bed (and what I paid for it LOL). Oh, and groceries and stuff stay nice and dry in the back seat area.
But what won't fit into the bed will go in my 5x10-foot utility trailer, which is larger than any regular pickup bed. And if it won't fit in there, I'll gladly pay the $50 delivery bill rather than drive around more empty outside cargo capacity than I'll ever need.
Chris Mallow on February 08, 2010 at 09:50 AM
I find this discussion fascinating because I was recently working on a post on my own blog, in which I defended myself for driving an "evil" 1986 Ford Bronco (the full-size one, not the smaller one). It's my daily driver, but only because my Mustang currently is waiting on an engine rebuild. In the meantime, it serves me very well. I myself work in the computer field, and I regularly haul around computers, large amounts of cabling, and other assorted parts (none of which I want to expose to the environment or to thieves, making a pick-up impractical). Obviously, since I have a Mustang that needs a rebuilt engine and I'd rather do it myself, I have to haul large, heavy engine parts around (buying the replacement block, heading over to the machine shop, bringing the block and heads back from the machine shop...). I also have moved furniture, outdoor toys for my kids, and scores of boxes to our small storage unit...and all of this within the past 12 months alone. It also has a backseat, very important considering I have 5 kids and sometimes am required to haul around a small subset of them and their friends for various purposes. The Bronco has 4WD, and I have used that with regularity, especially since here in Oklahoma, last winter and this winter have been two of the snowiest on record (in fact, it's snowing as I speak). Oklahoma is not a snowy state in winter and does not budget much for plows and sand, so having the ability to use 4WD for a little better control when conditions require it is very nice. Plus, I drive out in the country a lot, and sometimes the roads aren't very good, even under ideal conditions. (I wouldn't want to try zipping along some of these roads in a Prius, I'll tell you that.) So the Bronco might not be very economical in terms of fuel use, and of course it is frowned upon by the automotorati, but it hits my utility envelope very well. I use pretty much everything it provides, and I use it regularly. Once the Mustang's back in action, I'll be using it to split duties...besides, it's a convertible and MUCH more fun to drive when the weather's nice even than the Bronco is. (For the record, the wife and I also own a minivan for hauling around the kids.)
As Mr. Cagle pointed out above, EVs will merely be toys until they can hit the sweet-spot of delivering the same modicum of basic utility provided by today's ICEVs. The urban dwellers toward whom nearly all of today's marketing is targeted can delude themselves all they like, but there are still lots of us out here in the real world who live an entirely different lifestyle, with a different utility envelope...one that doesn't not need any sort of "change," as we are constantly told. Unfortunately, our love affair with cars has convinced us that they are no longer what they really are (namely, tools), but that they are indeed a lifestyle in and of themselves.
@That Car Guy: I LOVE the "Personal Utility Vehicle" idea...isn't it that sort of thinking that spawned the "personal luxury cars" like the Thunderbird, the Monte Carlo, and the Grand Prix? See a need, fill a need...
Wild Bill on February 08, 2010 at 09:53 AM
I think you hit the nail on the proverbial head, we are very much "utility" buyers. Not being people of substantial means, we have to get a lot of use out of a vehicle, everything from driving to work 85 miles a day (round trip) to hauling small loads from the lumber yard. A Yaris or Fit size vehicle would be best for the commute and an F-150 truck would handle the hauling, but we can't afford both, so something in between has to do for both functions and everything in between. Have a small SUV for this. Same for our towing needs (16 ft. livestock trailer) but we are even more limited here as it is a hobby use for the most part so there is a trade off on what will tow the trailer, haul the tack and transport up to four human bodies... oh, and be very reasonably priced on the used market to boot. Ford Expedition with the 5.4 V8 serves for this.
Denny on February 08, 2010 at 10:04 AM
I'm surprised there's no discussion of price. Yes: price.
How much does the car cost to drive off the lot or out of the seller's driveway? Purchase price, tags, inspection sticker? How efficient (mpg, maintenance, insurance, etc.) is it at getting me from point A to point B? What is its resale value?
For me, "utility" begins with the letter "p."
David Colborne on February 08, 2010 at 10:07 AM
comatus: Having multiple purpose-driven vehicles lying around isn't cheap or practical in most urban environments. Usually parking is in short supply, plus you have to deal with maintaining registration and insurance on all of those vehicles. That can quickly get out of hand.