Will Auto Makers Ever Deliver the Ideal Ski Vehicle?

[deadheadskier]

The difference between 25 MPG and 35 MPG over the course of 200k miles at today's gas rates is $10,000. For some people that buy used, they could actually have saved more in gas than the price of their car simply by buying a car that gets at least 35 MPG.

I doubt the average person can afford a $35k car (I sure can't) but if someone factored in the gas mileage savings of higher MPG, you suddenly could in a long enough time line. Going from 20 MPG to 40 MPG is $20,000 savings at today's gas prices over 200k miles (or $10,000 in 100k miles since some have suggested looking at a 200k mile lifetime is unrealistic).

You can certainly say screw the mileage. But you have to admit, that is not ideal. Which was the point of this thread....

all true and definitely the way that I look at things in my income bracket.

However, skiing is a luxury activity. Most people who ski every weekend, traveling long distances to do so, also pony up the cash for hotels every weekend, seasonal rental or own a second home. 10-20K in cost savings over the 5- 8 years they own a car doesn't make a big enough difference to those people that they're willing to either sacrifice space or certain performance characteristics.

 

[Glenn]

STI and Evo work fairly well for the small car segment. Screw the mileage, if you're paying $35k for a car and going skiing every or every other weekend, you're kidding yourself by worrying about the extra $10 per trip. Might as well have a car that's enjoyable to drive in the snow.

qft. Well put.

I think it's different for everyone. For us, we need something with room because we haul a lot of stuff in the off season. And something that tow. And something with decent ground clearance for mud season.

Worrying about 5mpg doesn't make a whole lot of sense when you look at the big picture.

 

[Geoff]

When you factor in non-highway driving, the combined is pretty miserable on a Subie, yes. 30 MPG highway is 10 MPG less than what gas cars are currently capable of so that is 1/3 less. But that is 1/3 on a scale from 0. On a scale of all passenger vehicles, it is really middle of the pack as all but the worst passenger non-performance non-truck vehicles get at least 20 MPG highway. Certain diesels can get 40+ MPG combined and certain hybrids get 40-50+ combined. Pretty much all compact cars by next year will be at 38-40 MPG excepting the Impreza. Yes, 30 MPG highway and low 20s combined is horrible from my perspective. See my previous post on the difference between 25 MPG combined vs 35 MPG combined and the associated costs.

If you do 20,000 miles per year on your car and gas costs $4.00 per gallon, the difference between 25 MPG combined and 35 MPG combined is $914 per year.

If the car is fairly new, 20,000 miles on a $25,000 car is $3,000 to $4,000 in depreciation. When you factor in all your other ownership costs like sales & property tax, registration, inspection, insurance, tires & brakes, oil changes.... that $914 per year is lost in the noise.

 

[Puck it]

Horrible MPG on both counts!

Ideal includes high MPG. You take a massive MPG hit for what most people would consider a good skier vehicle based on current available options.

I get about 20 mpg with it. It works for me. Thus it is the ideal ski vehicle.

 

[mondeo]

The difference between 25 MPG and 35 MPG over the course of 200k miles at today's gas rates is $10,000. For some people that buy used, they could actually have saved more in gas than the price of their car simply by buying a car that gets at least 35 MPG.

I doubt the average person can afford a $35k car (I sure can't) but if someone factored in the gas mileage savings of higher MPG, you suddenly could in a long enough time line. Going from 20 MPG to 40 MPG is $20,000 savings at today's gas prices over 200k miles (or $10,000 in 100k miles since some have suggested looking at a 200k mile lifetime is unrealistic).

You can certainly say screw the mileage. But you have to admit, that is not ideal. Which was the point of this thread....

You said ideal ski vehicle. Not ideal daily driver designed around ski trip capability. Changes the mileage assumptions.

Which goes back to my point. If you ski enough that ability as a ski vehicle is a prime consideration when purchasing a vehicle, then the additional yearly cost, compared to skiing, is a nit. If you don't ski enough for the cost to be a nit, then you probably shouldn't be looking for an ideal ski vehicle anyways.

Furthermore, what it seems that you're looking for is a capacious vehicle that gets 40mpg with AWD and decent performance for $20K or less. There's a reason the ideal ski vehicle doesn't exist. It can't be done profitably.

 

[SkiDork]

To each his own. My 2011 Suburban _for me_ is the ideal ski vehicle.

The 1 and only negative is of course, the gas mileage. Other than that is kicks ass.

 

[ctenidae]

My wife's Cayenne is a great ski vehicle. Decent (for an SUV) mileage, AWD, plenty of space. The only dings are that it's tall, so reaching for the roof rack is guaranteed to plant your belly on the road salt grime, and the mounting points are a little too far back so you can't open the hatch all the way with skis in the racks. Added bonus is it's fun to drive on twisty mountain roads. But, it is a bit pricey.

I thought both of the old Saab 9-3 hatchbacks I had were great. Front wheel drive, high-20's mileage, plenty of gear space, and you could open the back with skis in the rack. And fun to drive on twisty mountain roads. Alas, they don't make them any more.

My car is not an ideal ski vehicle. RWD, small trunk, less than stellar mileage, but it is a LOT of fun to drive on twisty moutnain roads.

 

[deadheadskier]

How bad is the Benz driving in snow? I've never driven a RWD in the snow. I hear they're terrible, but I'm wondering how much worse a RWD with snow tires is than a FWD with snows.

 

[ctenidae]

How bad is the Benz driving in snow? I've never driven a RWD in the snow. I hear they're terrible, but I'm wondering how much worse a RWD with snow tires is than a FWD with snows.

I've actually had no trouble whatsoever with snows on (without is an entirely different matter). I've felt more stable and secure in it than I expected. Only two days that I couldn't drive it to work, I couldn't drive the Cayenne, either (once with 3 feet of snow on the road, once with a super high tide sending icebergs across the causeway off the island). Once you figure out how it behaves, it does just fine. It's actually a tough adjustment going from the RWD to the AWD- the rear end sliding out is one thing, an unexpected 4 wheel drift is something else.

That said, it's certainly more work, and you have to stay on your toes, so for driving back in shitty weather after a day of skiing (yes, I ski...), the choice is pretty simple.

 

[Geoff]

We all have different use patterns.

I only drive 2 miles to go skiing. What I care about in a ski car is to be able to get out of my parking spot on a powder day and cope with two feet of unplowed slop in the ski area parking lot. My skis live in the car all winter so I want a rolling ski locker. I boot up in my condo so I want an automatic and enough foot space to drive with ski boots.

The rest of the time, I want a nice sub-$30K daily driver that gets good fuel economy and is fun to drive.

I own two cars. An SUV that is my rolling ski locker and a VW GTI that is my daily driver.

With a receiver hitch and a really small, low profile roof box, I can imagine collapsing down to one car. An Audi A3 Quattro is the closest to what I'd want but I don't want to be held hostage by an Audi dealership for service (see Dork's "I am an idiot" thread).

 

[JimG.]

I boot up in my condo so I want an automatic and enough foot space to drive with ski boots.

Now I understand why you are not a fan of manual transmissions.

Can't drive a stick with ski boots on!

 

[gmcunni]

I thought both of the old Saab 9-3 hatchbacks I had were great. Front wheel drive, high-20's mileage, plenty of gear space, and you could open the back with skis in the rack. And fun to drive on twisty mountain roads. Alas, they don't make them any more.

i concur. had a 2000 93 se, with snow tires that thing was incredible in the snow. my only knock would be the relevantly low ground clearance so if there was dump of snow and the roads weren't plowed it could be an issue.

honda CRV was pretty good mix of features and functionality. decent mileage, pretty good AWD, good clearance and plenty of space for 4 + gear.

 

[Geoff]

Now I understand why you are not a fan of manual transmissions.

Can't drive a stick with ski boots on!

I had always owned manual transmission cars. My first two SUVs were manuals. In 1998, I couldn't buy what I wanted with a manual transmission so I got my first automatic. That's when I discovered I could drive it wearing ski boots.

That SUV also had the Ford on-the-door combination lock. A near-essential feature for me now is to not need a car key when I'm out skiing.

 

[mondeo]

It's actually a tough adjustment going from the RWD to the AWD- the rear end sliding out is one thing, an unexpected 4 wheel drift is something else.

Never lift, apply a dab of oppo, rinse repeat.

Although, my four wheel drifts aren't unexpected. They're just how I get around corners in the snow.

 

[ctenidae]

Never lift, apply a dab of oppo, rinse repeat.

Although, my four wheel drifts aren't unexpected. They're just how I get around corners in the snow.

Yeah- it's just remembering that the car will do that that's tough.
Does make for fun driving, though (as long as there's not someone ahead of you doing an unintentional 720 with a 4-fender telephone pole bump.

 

[deadheadskier]

That SUV also had the Ford on-the-door combination lock. A near-essential feature for me now is to not need a car key when I'm out skiing.

I wish every car on the market had this feature. I had an Explorer for many years and loved being able to lock my keys and wallet in the car, especially when going to the beach.

I have no idea why so few models offer it.

 

[Cannonball]

If you do 20,000 miles per year on your car and gas costs $4.00 per gallon, the difference between 25 MPG combined and 35 MPG combined is $914 per year.

If the car is fairly new, 20,000 miles on a $25,000 car is $3,000 to $4,000 in depreciation. When you factor in all your other ownership costs like sales & property tax, registration, inspection, insurance, tires & brakes, oil changes.... that $914 per year is lost in the noise.

$914 per year isn't lost in the noise to me. $914 could by my season pass + a bunch of days at other mountains. So one way to look at it is: "buy a fuel efficient car...ski free all season". And that's every year that you own it, so it's more like: "Buy a fuel efficient car...ski free for 10 years."

 

[deadheadskier]

Toyota has. It is tge FJ Cruiser. Love it. 100K in three years no problem. No carpet. Goes through anything. Had it in 4' of snow and no problem. Oh, it is great for off roading too.

what do you think you'll eventually replace it with now that the FJ was discontinued?

Personally, I think they made a mistake with the styling. They should've gone with a look similar to the old FJ.

I think the FJ's target market is the same as the Jeep Wrangler Unlimited. Jeep stuck with the 'classic' design, where as FJ went more bold.

 

[Philpug]

Diesels will solve the mileage issue.

 

[Puck it]

what do you think you'll eventually replace it with now that the FJ was discontinued?

Personally, I think they made a mistake with the styling. They should've gone with a look similar to the old FJ.

I think the FJ's target market is the same as the Jeep Wrangler Unlimited. Jeep stuck with the 'classic' design, where as FJ went more bold.

They are making them through 2012. I may get a new one this year. However, I can not seem to break mine. Hoping for this color option.

Or will go with a four door Jeep Wrangler