Station wagons (mid to full size) w/front bench seat & good MPG
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
For a full sized "wagon" it's hard to beat a Chevy Suburban 1993>1999. They run forever, ride like a limo and will haul or pull anything you can throw at them. These were some of the last "all steel body on all steel frame" wagons made. A nice one from those years can be had for under $10,000.
We use our bought new 1993 Suburban for road trips or trips to the city nearby. Around our little town I get 13mpg, while on the road I get 20>21mpg which for a fully loaded 8,000lbs vehicle isn't all bad!! With our large fuel tank I can run up to about 750 miles before another fill up which I've done twice.
Those would be my recommendation as well. The LT1 in those cars was not only strong, but fairly efficient as well. A buddy of mine inherited one from his grandfather and he still uses it as their family hauler and rountinely sees 25 highway and has enough power to handle anything he wants.
My other suggestion would just be to get a minivan. It's hard to beat the versatility, size and MPG of those for the kind of work you are looking to do.
Tried that. You're basically right except for how it was horrendously uncomfortable for my wife. Her uncommon dimensions require a front bench seat.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Grandpa Pipes
For a full sized "wagon" it's hard to beat a Chevy Suburban 1993>1999. They run forever, ride like a limo and will haul or pull anything you can throw at them. These were some of the last "all steel body on all steel frame" wagons made. A nice one from those years can be had for under $10,000.
We use our bought new 1993 Suburban for road trips or trips to the city nearby. Around our little town I get 13mpg, while on the road I get 20>21mpg which for a fully loaded 8,000lbs vehicle isn't all bad!! With our large fuel tank I can run up to about 750 miles before another fill up which I've done twice.
My wife has a 1996 Tahoe, so I have a point of reference. Driving it home from Nebraska, alone with nothing in it, going around 60 mph most of the time, I got 20 mpg on the first tank (which was pure gas, not that "gasohol" E10 stuff). Subsequent tanks were, naturally, a bit less. It's good mileage for a vehicle that size but I'm talking about something that gets substantially more than 16 mpg at 70 mph.
My wife has a 1996 Tahoe, so I have a point of reference. Driving it home from Nebraska, alone with nothing in it, going around 60 mph most of the time, I got 20 mpg on the first tank (which was pure gas, not that "gasohol" E10 stuff). Subsequent tanks were, naturally, a bit less. It's good mileage for a vehicle that size but I'm talking about something that gets substantially more than 16 mpg at 70 mph.
Sorry, but there is a limit to how much gas mpg is possible for any sized vehicle.
That said, since there is so much mass in a full size 'burban momentum comes into play to help maximize the BTU's in each gallon of fuel up to about 65>70. Past that speed you start to get into air resistance which off sets momentum real fast!
That is why I'm so happy with our 'burban getting 20>21 MPG on the road. I get the ride I want for little to no fuel penalty. I have no illusions that there is a better vehicle for our use fuel MPG be damned since we get good enough.
One point I noted: Very often the fuel MPG between a little ass beater and lux-o-mobile like a suburban is not that great when the mass moved is considered. To move 8,000 lbs and get 20>21 Mpg is great while moving a little car that weighs in at 3,000 lbs , or less, that gets 22>28 mpg isn't a show stopping MPG gain. There are limits and physics restrictions that control the whole mpg question of mass vs. energy.
Last edited by Grandpa Pipes; 11-12-2012 at 06:49 PM..
This. The front seat is what I would call a modified bench, bucket driver and passenger seats with the flip-fold armrest converting to a middle seat (personal child experience says it's uncomfortable). We have both a 2002 Taurus wagon and two 1995 Taurus wagons. The 95's get/got (still have them on the road) in the range of 24-26 MPG with 6 people and light luggage. The engine was the stock 3.0L V6. The 2002 gets a bit less, 3.0L DOHC V6. It has more power and quicker response. The 02 and one of the 95's also have the 3rd rear facing seat, which will seat two small people. The front seat on the 95's is more comfortable, the seats are a 60/40 configuration with movable armrest.
We had a Ford Crown Vic wagon from the 80's and it was the best vehicle we ever had but I don't remember a lot of details. We bought it used, it was hit while legally parked by a teenager on her first "cruise" alone with her boyfriend and the insurance totaled it out, gave us a check and we patched it together to run a few more thousand miles. Tank. Seemed like the gas mileage wasn't too bad but then gas wasn't this high.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
