Thinking of buying a Yukon and I feel guilty

Ok. I currently have a 2006 Toyota Tundra doublecab that I love and my wife has a 2004 Mazda 6 wagon. I also have an (almost) spec miata that I am running in NASA TT and a 2004 CBR600rr. My wife is pregnant with twins and we also have two 80 lb golden retrievers, I need a vehicle with three rows of seats and will almost certainly trade the Tundra which also means I need a tow vehicle. We have been looking at (all used) Sequioa, Yukon/Tahoe, Expedition and also the CX-9, Odyssey etc.

My only chance of continuing NASA TT and subsequently Spec Miata is to trade the Tundra on a family vehicle that can tow 5000 lbs at least and fit twins and 2 goldens. The Explorer is kind of small for this and for some strange reason I feel guilty about buying a Yukon/Tahoe even though it is the best SUV I have found so far. I can't explain this guilt but it is there. I have thought about trading both vehicles in on a Minivan and an older truck but it appears as though keeping the 6 wagon and buying an SUV would be cheaper in the long term (excluding $9 gas.)

Help me with my crisis. The twins are already changing my life. I used to not understand the big SUV syndrome, but after driving it and understanding my passenger requirements the Yukon/Tahoe seems like the best option. The Suburban would be better but my wife refuses to drive the longer Suburban versus the Yukon.

Just an FYI for all. My wife drives 14 miles round trip to work. The 6 wagon would be the primary vehicle during nice weather as I will ride the bike. All longer trips will be made in the Yukon. Any opinions/advice?

Thanks

What do you feel guilty about?

In reply to mattm:

The Denali comes in a diesel

In reply to walterj:

I can't buy new, it must be used and thus I haven't been able to find a single yukon or tahoe that has a diesel or I would be all over it. Also, I am finding that financing an SUV appears to not be the best idea at this time. Pre-approval with the credit union is easy but when you mention SUV they get very nervous... Interesting. Oh well. Having twins will be interesting... :)

TJ wrote: What do you feel guilty about?

The fact that it looks like I will have to purchase a 5000lb vehicle to transport my family. I ride a motorcycle and time trial a miata. Even my old 79 RX7 got 20 mpg. I have never had a vehicle like a Yukon. Even my 2wd Tundra averages 18 mpg with a decent amount of city driving...

Go test drive a Yukon and a Suburban back to back. I doubt you'll notice much of a difference between the two, but the extra storage space is really nice to have and the gas mileage difference is negligible.

The longer wheelbase is nice when towing as well.

I just went through this > exact < same purchase decision. Replace twins with three youngsters, the Goldens with a Chessie, and the Miata with a... well, a Miata and a 240Z.

The Explorer will never cut it - eliminate it from your consideration.

Test drive the Yukon/Tahoe back to back with a Sequoia. Really DRIVE them, not just tootle around. Back in and out of some shopping mall parking spots. Do a three point turn. Parallel park. Merge on the freeway, then do a quick lane change. Sit in the third row (okay, attempt to sit in the third row in one case). All will be clear to you and you will wonder why in the world you were even considering the GM product in the first place.

How much do you have to tow that you can't drive a mini van, or say an astro/safari? That might assuage your guilt a little. My 05 sienna has averaged 19 combined. 3500lbs seems to be the tow rating on the sienna.

If you use it for its intended purpose, why feel guilty? Also, note that a newer Yukon AND Suburban get better mileage than your Tundra, if fuel economy is a concern. As mentioned above, the Tahoe and Suburban get pretty much identical fuel economy, so unless vehicle length is a big issue (parking space limitations, driver not comfortable with larger vehicle, etc.) then I'd take a good long look at the Suburban. I think the newest Suburbans are extremely nice, and if I had a need for a newer big rig I'd be all over one of those. The Tahoes are equally nice, but since they're about the same money, same fuel economy, etc. with more storage space it's a no-brainer for me...parking limitations be damned!

Bryce

I love the police versions.

Nothing to feel guilty about. I love my '03 V8 Explorer. It's just what I needed to pull my race car and haul my family around. When we go on long road trips we take the Outback Wagon.

What about the Ford Expedition or Lincoln Navigator? The regular version is a bit longer than a Tahoe and a bit shorter than a Suburban. A friend of mine found that he could buy a Lincoln Navigator cheaper than the Expedition due to the incredible depreciation of the Lincoln. I think he spent $20k. His situation was 3 kids, a dog and a boat.

Check www.fueleconomy.gov to compare fuel economy.

From another Father of Twins, the Chrysler T&C holds 3 kids, and yes, 2 golden retrievers. and gets 25-26 on the highway

Buy a Cheap POS F-series to tow the miata occasionaly.

It's all about the dogs, really. We are on our way to our second kid, and are familiar with that part of the problem with our two 80 lb dogs. We don't tow, so our PT Cruiser does just fine, even with the dogs as long as there is no luggage, and 27-28 mpg is okay.

You have two basic choices, 1: buy a cheap F150 from 1985 and tow with it (you could even get an extended cab to bring the kiddies, if I remember correctly) and buy another wagon like the wife's so you could both haul kids and dogs (two carseats will fit in one row). Alternate is a minivan if you really want that extra row of seating. 2: buy a towing / hauling kids / hauling dogs vehicle. A large Ford van, a large SUV etc... If this happens, you can offset the purchase price by selling the Mazda and buying her something cheap to avoid financing. She can haul just as much stuff in a 240 Wagon as she can in a 6 Wagon for a tenth of the cost.

The other point I'd like to make is that you most likely won't be racing for around 6 months to a year after they are born, at least. Don't think you'll be jumping right in, unless you want a very pissed off wife.

My opinion (and it's just that, an opinion) since you mentioned financing (channeling my inner Dave Ramsey) is to do this: Sell the Tundra on trade for a reliable but older wagonish vehicle. Something with a high depreciation, like a Volvo or a Chrysler/Chevy/Ford minivan. This should net you some money and fuel economy. An older Chevy Venture is going to be crazy cheap, as is some 200,700 or 900 Volvo Wagon.

Buy the wife a cheaper car. There really isn't a good reason to have two vehicles for the same purpose in the same household. In other words, both vehicles you own don't have to be capable of towing, carrying the dogs, and carrying the kids. You can have one commuter vehicle (replace the 6), one family vehicle (the wagon/van) and one towing vehicle (the older F series). This way you don't go into debt. My son is one year old, and let me say, you have no idea of the expense on your time and wallet. This is going to hurt, the worst thing you can do now is to take on more debt.

If you really like the Tundra, the really easy way out of all of this (especially if you don't owe any money on the cars) is to put the carseats in the back of the Tundra and get a cap to put over the bed which you can stow the dogs in for the times when you drive them around.

Three rows of seats really aren't necessary until you get 3+ kiddies.

Good luck - get lots of sleep in the coming months. -Brian

mattm wrote:

TJ wrote: What do you feel guilty about?

The fact that it looks like I will have to purchase a 5000lb vehicle to transport my family. I ride a motorcycle and time trial a miata. Even my old 79 RX7 got 20 mpg. I have never had a vehicle like a Yukon. Even my 2wd Tundra averages 18 mpg with a decent amount of city driving...

I'm still not getting why that would make you feel guilty. You are either willing to pay the price for the vehicle you need, or not. Nothing to feel guilty about, just a decision to make.

I would say go with the Yukon/Tahoe as well........or.......... a 3/4 ton van. Those can be had used with Diesels and can come pretty well equipped.

Full-size vans are the forgotten tow vehicle/people haulers of the world. They aren't pretty, and they aren't going to be as good in the snow as an SUV, but they'll get the job done and are generally cheaper.

Another suggestion, if mileage is a concern, would be an Excursion with the Powerstroke. They are getting rare and holding their value well, though.

I'm in the camp that says if you need it, buy it. To me there's no more versatile vehicle than a full-size SUV. Hauls people, hauls stuff, can tow, can go off road, can go in the snow. The only negative is the gas mileage, but there's no free lunch.

I like the full size van Idea. What about a roadmaster or if you want newer, magnum?

I crossed this bridge when my second son was born. Bought a year old Expedition, which has been the best truck I ever owned. My ex still has it, we kind of share it, though now its a third vehicle. I would have gone the minivan route, but wanted 4wd and V8.

I'd just find a diesel 4x4 excursion with the 7.3..

Sure it's more truck, but it's diesel and with love and attention, plus some mods will do 20+mpg..

And you can get them fairly cheap.
http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/EXCURSION-7-3L-POWERSTROKE-4X4-LTHR-GREASECAR-SYSTEM_W0QQitemZ230352343421QQcmdZViewItemQQptZUS_Cars_Trucks?hash=item35a211d17d&_trksid=p4506.c0.m245&_trkparms=65%3A12|39%3A1|72%3A317|240%3A1318 <---- $10k

Sure they have a solid front end and are complete tanks, but you can't argue with that one above with a grease car kit. You can run it for basically free off of waste veggie.

tuna55 wrote: If you really like the Tundra, the really easy way out of all of this (especially if you don't owe any money on the cars) is to put the carseats in the back of the Tundra and get a cap to put over the bed which you can stow the dogs in for the times when you drive them around.

+1

Ford Expedition was mentioned, I think it's a good alternative. More room than a Tahoe but not as gargantuan as a Suburban.

Underline the 3/4 ton van. Nobody wants them so they are cheap. They offer everything an SUV does except 4X4, with more room and the simplification of RWD. Since you wont DD it all year (riding your CBR) I wouldn't feel guilty about those times when you do need to drive it at less than its' capacity. I just read in GRM that they bought a 2006 E-250 van for $7,000, 76,000 miles on it with a 4.6 V8. That's a ton of functionality that's only three years old for only 7K.

David

I think you can get big vans with 4WD if you need it

neon4891 wrote:

tuna55 wrote: If you really like the Tundra, the really easy way out of all of this (especially if you don't owe any money on the cars) is to put the carseats in the back of the Tundra and get a cap to put over the bed which you can stow the dogs in for the times when you drive them around.

+1

Yeah.. wait.. This sounds like the cheapest and best advice... It's a double cab tundra, isn't it?

David_Chong wrote: I just went through this > exact < same purchase decision. Replace twins with three youngsters, the Goldens with a Chessie, and the Miata with a... well, a Miata and a 240Z. The Explorer will never cut it - eliminate it from your consideration. Test drive the Yukon/Tahoe back to back with a Sequoia. Really DRIVE them, not just tootle around. Back in and out of some shopping mall parking spots. Do a three point turn. Parallel park. Merge on the freeway, then do a quick lane change. Sit in the third row (okay, *attempt* to sit in the third row in one case). All will be clear to you and you will wonder why in the world you were even considering the GM product in the first place.

David,

Are you talking about the 2008 and up Sequoia or the previous version? It appears to me that the 2007 Yukon vs the 2007 Sequoia is no contest, but in favor of the Yukon. I am sure that the newer Sequoia is better but it is also more expensive in my experience.

I do like the New Tundra and Sequoia but there are fewer of them and more expensive.