Ford: Your suggestoin for a SUV

The wife is hell bent on buying an SUV- for all the wrong reasons- like show
off-- be fashionable- be trendy etc..Looks like i have to bite the bullet
and get her a brand new or slightly used SUV.
I looked into the market and every compnay has many SUVs each. I am
confused and am afraid I will make a poor decision. Please share your
thoughts and experiences. I would really appreciate it. For reference - I
have a 96 Infinity G20, 94 SaabAERO, 92 OLDSMOBILE Silhouette.

Purpose of this SUV:
The purpose is not to perform "OFF-THE ROAD"
The purpose is not to "TOW" boats or other massive loads.
The purpose is simply vanity.
SIZE;
We are four people in the house- Me - Wife- and four grown up children- SO a
5 seater is plenty.
MOSTLY USED FOR:
Drivingto work - 15 miles away- on high ways mostly
WHAT I WANT OUT OF THE SUV:
fun to drive- reliable and not too expensive to maintain-
I don't care about gas mileage-
I don't care about US or foreign make-

Please reply to my email address.

P.S:
I heard that the Mercedes Benz ML series SUV is a pain to own.
I heard that the FORD EXPLORER had several problems in the past.
I heard the LAND ROVER is a lousy vehicle to keep and maintain.
I heard that the Toyota line is good - reliable- but boring vehicles to
drive.

GoodLuck wrote:
 

Check.
 

Check. She wants a raised minivan. No problem with that - the
entire market of small ot midsize SUVs are this. Worthless off-road,
but nice high up driving position and great in rain and snow.

First off - check out the National Highway Safety site on crash
tests - they recently did a batch of side-impact tests with a
woman and child in the truck.

Most were deathtraps, believe it or not, due to poor side impact
protection. Read the report and buy the ones that tested highest.
In any case - ONLY buy one with side-impact airbags. One of the worst
in the group, the Ford Escape, went to second best with this $350 option.
Almost surely dead to a few days recovering. Most of the ones they
tested WITH this option will be fine other than the ones that intruded
too much into the compartment.

51% of accidents are from side impacts. Most of the drivers
of SUVs (total amount of time driving per day) were women -
significantly higher than men. With SUVs approaching nearly
50% of vehicles on the road in some cities, it's long overdue
to test like this. The tests were done at typical city speeds
as well - a mere 30mph. Considering that most drivers who are
involved in crashes are speeding or go faster than the standard
35mph posted speed on most main roads, even with braking to try to
stop before they hit, 30mph is a very realistic impact speed.

The NHSTA doesn't do this test, which is unfortunate. Guess
what the manufacturers use for their crash data? Yep - the
NHSTA one.

http://www.hwysafety.org/news_releases/2003/pr061703.htm
Truly enlightening reading.

Oh - it's tons worse for cars struck by a SUV. Take a look
at that heap of a Geo that was hit by a pickup truck on
that page. Ow.

Note on the crash pictures pages that the older Detroit
steel(tm) seemed to fare better than most smaller cars.

http://www.hwysafety.org/vehicle_ratings/ce/html/summary_smsuv_side.htm
The ratings. Ow.

Larger SUVs are to be tested in a few months. As evidenced by the
above tests, size will likely make little difference for many of
the SUVs. Some, but not a lot.

Also, the rear seat on most 3rd-row SUVs is well within the rear
crumple zone, so short of a Expedition or Yukon, you're looking at
3 in the second row and the 3rd row removed.