2008 Comparison Test: Crossover vs. Minivan vs. SUV

This is a very LA-centric test. What if you live in an area where you have to deal with snow on a regular basis? How would that have affected the results?

Great comparo! I would take the Acadia.
 
In the future (if you do another one of these), could you guys possibly do a combination of 5-seaters (such as Accord, RAV4, and a station wagon of some sort)? I ask because many families are also in the market for midsize sedans or small/midsize SUVs. Thanks!

7driver, the story points out the fact that the Odyssey is not available with AWD.
 
Hmm. Maybe a future comparison test should take these to the snow country:
 
FWD-with-winter-tires vs AWD vs 4WD.

Once we ruled out off-roading and towing as specialized activities, we settled on a framework.
 
Well, duh... Yeah, the answer became obvious even before the testing began. Rule those items out from the get-go and you don't even need a test to come up with the results. However, if you include off-roading and towing and the results reverse themselves.
 
7driver is correct in that this is a very LA-centric comparison test. I'll go even further: It's a suburbia-centric test that goes well beyond LA. Get outside the suburban centers—this is a BIG country after all—and you might find a lot of families who disagree with these results. Go to the mountains and/or snowbelt and I guarantee you will find a whole lot of disagreement with these test results.

Yes clearly a test designed with criteria for the minivan.
 
The article asks, "What's the best car?", "It depends on what you use your car for." And the article sets criteria for the minivan to win.

For 40 grand each? None of them.
 
And like the others, I love the handicap placed on the Sequoia and Acadia. What, base the decision based on the vehicle's actual capabilities and design intentions? What a crazy idea! It seems like it's simply a story designed to back up what many of the editors here have been saying, that most people would be better served by a minivan than an SUV or CUV. I guess they "found" the evidence to back up that assertion.

Look, folks, large SUVs work for only a very small segment of the population: those who have large families (x>=5) and large items to tow or haul. That's the ONLY stipulation that would reverse this test's results. For the vast majority of large families out there, a minivan is the best, most rational choice. Period. And for those affected by snow - ya probably got by without AWD for years, and ain't much changed since then. Save some gas & skip AWD or do us all a favor & get an Acadia.

"For 40 grand each? None of them."
 
Agreed. Is your typical family really expected to spend $40+ G's on basic transportation? Maybe that's where you really get LA-centric?

roar02ram
 
I don't know where you live but where I live, which is where the rural countryside begins and is near the Chesapeake Bay and several reservoirs, I see a lot of SUVs pulling boat, utility and horse trailers. I'm betting the percentage of those who need these vehicles is larger than you think.
 
Again, once you get away from suburbia, and into the rural areas of this country—which is HUGE, the need for large SUVs increase dramatically.
 
As much as many would like, large SUVs will not go away and die. There will ALWAYS be a market for them.

This test is relevant to most families who own one of these big cars, since most of them will never go farther off-road than a soccer field and never tow anything larger than a bike rack mounted on the hitch. People just don't want to hear that a minivan would work better, be safer, hold more, and save gas vs. their giant SUV.

Not true. I fully acknowledge the advantages of a minivan over SUVs.
 
What I'm saying is (A) this test was stacked against SUVs at the get-go by ruling out their advantages, and (B) those writing this test and those reading this test more than likely live in suburbia, and therefore point out (accurately) the realities of that environment.
 
Get someone from Utah, Colorado, or Maine, or any other rural area to make this comparison and I bet the "slant" will be entirely different.

This artile was a cool idea, but probably a forgone conclusion. I'd also like to see a comparison of a unibody Rav4/CRV/Escape type "suv" with a sedan based wagon, and perhaps a Mazda5 sized minivan.
 
The prices on these vehicles was ridiculous, and not in the range of the average "family", especially one with three or four kids. I wish the ablilty to transport large objects wasn't such a factor in the test. I think the Highlander gets better milage than a minivan, can still seat seven, and has some capabilities a minivan does not (and AWD).
 
Oh, and did some poster ask about driving in snow? Are you kidding? Talk about forgone conclusions. Snow tires aren't as great as you think. You'll talk to many people who replace all-season tires (or better yet, summer tires) with 20-30,000 miles with new snow tires and rave about the difference. Not exactly a fair comparison. If you have 6/32+ tread on all seasons (10-12/32 is new), the test would read like this (worst to first): rwd, rwd w/snow, fwd, fwd w/snow, AWD, AWD w/snow, 4wd. The only thing that would change that would be driving on ice, rather than snow, which would (ironically) favor the snow tires, but probably not significantly. Keep in mind many AWD/4wd cars have more ground clearance, which makes the biggest difference in snow (at least where I'm forced to drive).

I think they considered criteria for the average family. They made that disclaimer up front, fair and square. Remember they are testing the best family car, not the best off roading work-horse truck.
 
97% of SUVs never go go off road. I'd venture to say that 99.9% of people with a brand-spanking new $40,000 vehicle are not going off road.
 
So let's cross that off the list right away. The best off road vehicles are built, not bought, anyway.
 
Towing is different. If you need to tow more than 3500 lbs or so, you really don't have much of a choice.
 
I think the Lambdas can tow 4500 lbs. OK for a small to medium sized boat, perhaps.
 
In a van, I would suggest the AWD Sienna, since you want the rear axle to pull that boat up a wet ramp (FWD may not make it). A lot of Sienna owners add air bags to level out the rear suspension. There may be warranty issues but people do tow more than the factory limits regularly.
 
Bob made some valid points, but under the criteria they set, I think they made the right decision. A minivan offers more space and features for less money, using less gas, all the while being far easier to drive and live with.

I would love to see that data as to the percentage of where these vehicle are bought. Maybe Edmunds has that data buried away somewhere?
 
Yes, suburbia has far more people per square mile than in the rural areas. Having said that, just look at a map of the USA and you will see just how big this country is, and how those vast rural square miles compare to urban/suburban square miles.
 
AJ (ateixeira) is correct, but again, he lives in a suburban neighborhood, and reflects (accurately, I might add) the realities as he sees it.

The purpose of the test was to see what vehicle best meets the needs of the average family. As Ateixeira stated, 97% of SUV's never go off-road. Most Surburbans or Expeditions I see have a middle aged women in suburbia with one child in the back seat. Why do you need a 6,000 lbs vehicle for that? There are some of you that may use an SUV for hauling boats and trailers, but not that many of you. Think back to the 70's and 80's when the only reason someone bought an SUV was to do some real off-roading and to do some heavy duty towing. People hauling was left to minivans and station wagons. People somehow managed to survive doing that. The only reason that the large SUV's became a regular sight on American roads was for status and because of cheap fuel.
 
Here in Australia, we don't need large SUV's. We're a country that is as large as the States, but with many more dirt, rough roads. The typical family haulers are the wagon versions of the Ford Falcon or Holden Commodore (Pontiac G8) and the Falcon-based Territory. These vehicles can tow and haul seven people.
 
I see large SUV's as a niche market and many people have bought them solely on looks and a false sense of security. I just don't understand why Americans will still defend large SUV's like this when they are facing $4/gallon fuel. The minivan can haul more cargo, fit people more comfortably, drives more like a car, and is more efficent. It makes logical sense to buy one of those, but then again, I'll never understand the American car industry.

I can't speak for Australia, but I suspect that American-style SUVs are far more expensive than they are here, which is probably why so few are are bought. What you folks buy, if I'm correct, are Toyota Land Cruiser LC70s and the like, which are diesel purpose-built rugged off-roaders.
 
Again, AJ is correct in saying 97% of our "suburbia-owned" SUVs never go off road. Get outside of suburbia and that percentage changes dramatically. I've got family in rural Arkansas and rural Arizona, and I know they take their SUVs off road as they are hunters, fisherman and outdoorsmen.
 
...And for the record, our family has 3 Subarus and a CRV. We don't own a large SUV—but I fully understand the need for them, which is why I've taken this stance.

I think those rural areas exist but are sparsely populated. Look at a population density map and you'll see the dots mostly tend towards metropolitan areas.
 
In a city, the minivan would strech its advantages even further. So I think the 'burbs is a fair middle ground. I'm fairly certain that's where most of these (all 3) are used.
 
I just read the whole test. Keep in mind the Ody was a few grand cheaper, and was the only one with GPS navigation and a bakcup cam. Ironically it's the one that needs the backup cam the least.
 
That Sequoia was pretty bare bones. The Acadia somewhere between the two, but still no GPS or backup cams. And visibility is poor for both. At least they have sonar sensors for backing up. You'll need them, trust me. I backed an Outlook over a curb on a test drive. You just can't see squat from the driver's seat.
 
Even if you do off road, you enjoy that benefit 3% of the time. The other 97% of the time you're guzzling 25% more fuel, struggling to park, getting door dings from the wide-swinging doors that your kids cannot reach by the way because they are not tall enough!
 
Look at the cargo with 3 rows in use. 8 to 2! Eight to Two! No contest. Basically when full of people the Sequoia and Acadia do not offer enough cargo space for those 7/8 people. Only the van can be used for both lots of people *and* cargo.
 
And while the Ody was a little slower and has a joke of an 8th seat, two weaknesses Edmunds pointed out, I'd suggest trying a Sienna, which address both concerns and even offers AWD.
 
That makes it even harder to justify the SUV or crossover.
 
The Sienna is much quicker than either, and has an adult sized removeable 8th seat. It also offers an AWD model with 1.2" more ground clearance than the FWD Sienna. The cargo area is a whopping 4" wider than the Ody. You could try for 9 or 10 of those boxes, I suppose.
 
Sorry, but to me, that's Game Over. Minivans win.

Rsholland-
 
"I see a lot of SUVs pulling boat, utility and horse trailers. I'm betting the percentage of those who need these vehicles is larger than you think."
 
Let's return to my argument: "large SUVs work for only...those who have large families (x>=5) and large items to tow or haul."
 
Your statement addresses only half of that argument and your statement is in fact only a sufficient (not necessary) condition for large SUV ownership. If towing & hauling are the primary reasons for owning a large SUV, then any number of midsize SUVs or even full-size pickup trucks will do the same job for less money. Only if one needs to haul or to tow large amounts PLUS haul at least 5 passengers (I'll allow that the center seat is rarely comfortable) would one have a genuine need for one of these.
 
The article explicitly states that people with these specific, genuine needs would in fact be best served by the Sequoia. Others, though, whose needs encompass only one of the two stipulations that I put forth might be better served by a different vehicle.

Rsholland,
That is true that SUV's are much more dear in Australia and that we don't buy many for that reason. But even though we can't afford them, most of us are still able to survive hauling the family around and gear around in Falcons, Territorys, Commodores, and Toyota Taragos (Previas).
 
The diesel Land Cruisers and Nissan Patrols are the most popular larger SUV's here, but many of them are used for their intended purpose, over-roading and bushbashing. I rarely see them just hanging around the suburbs of Melbourne and Sydney doing family errands. They would be a laughingstock.
 
No doubt that there are Americans who really do need a truck based vehicle for everyday life in rural areas. But most Americans live in the city, and the average SUV in the States never sees the end of pavement. There will always be people who need 4WD and the ground clearance, but not enough to justify such high sales of the large SUVs. The closest most will get to off-roading is going to Blockbuster to rent "Jurassic Park"

AJ, again, you're not an outdoorsman in that you don't hunt, fish, etc., which a lot of or rural SUV owners do. Your perspective is strictly coming at it as from someone who lives in "suburbia" and who doesn't really understand the needs and/or desires of rural sportsmen. So for you. your perspective makes sense. Ask my cousin Joe who lives in rural Arizona, and I'm sure he'd have a different take.
 
roar02ram
I see your point, but mid-size SUVs also have their limitations in terms of capability, which is why there are full-size SUVs.
 
festiboi1
No doubt most Americans buy SUVs for the wrong reasons—and I suspect that's what most people are saying here. I don't dispute that.
 
Where I have a point of contention is when suburbanites are telling those who truly use their SUVs as intended, that they are wrong, or that they could get by with something different.
 
To me that's no different than telling a Porsche owner, or every sports car owner, that they should own something more "responsible."

Disclaimer: I realize that, due to the realities of the press fleets, you can't always get the vehicle you want for testing.
 
If you knew that you weren't going to be doing any offroading/bad weather driving, why did the Sequoia have 4WD and the Acadia AWD? You could have traded the 4WD for either leather or (preferably) the better engine, and you could have traded the AWD for the Nav system with a backup camera. Both trades would have yeilded faster times and better fuel economy, and probably would have increased the editors opinions of the vehicles. Would it have caused an upset? Probably not. But it would have been nice for the test to have been a little more apples-to-apples.

But that wouldn't have shown such a clear "victory" for the minivan.

I lived in Anchorage for twenty winters with FWD cars. Half that time a FWD minivan was in the stable. It's the tires (depending on your driveway!).
  
All my boats, tents, bikes and other outdoor gear fit in or on top of the van, so I don't tow. I've always avoided towing since it's hard to drive on the backroads pulling a trailer (yep, those minivans don't 4x4, but they've seen a lot of dirt and gravel forest service roads). We're talking the Dempster and the Trans-Labrador Highway, and the Haul Road up to Atigun Pass, among others.
  
My biggest complaint about my minivans is the ground clearance - 2 more inches would be terrific. And I'm not excited about paying over $25,000 for my next one either.

I thought about the 2WD Sequoia or the FWD Acadia as well, though to be honest I think an AWD Sienna would have been more of an alternative to these than an Ody.
 
I don't disagree with you, Bob, I'm just defending Edmunds' position of testing these for the average family.
 
I don't think the average family goes hunting. That's more special needs, vs. average family. Plus, if you shoot Bambi, how are you going to carry her home? You'd need a pickup for that, and I'm sure that's what most hunters would buy.

Have you ever been hunting, atex? It's "average family" in lots of places, and lots of people do it in vehicles other than trucks. (Also, hunting can be done against animals other than deer.)
 
How many "average families" spend $40,000 on a minivan?
 
You might as well take an Elise, Viper, and Accord and ask which one is best for the "average commuter", after saying that you would ignore things like acceleration and handling.

I've been shooting, off roading, and both at the same time, but not hunting. We had a regular cab pickup, a 2 door GMC Jimmy, and a couple of Jeeps. None of those are family vehicles!
 
The price argument is positively weak, because minivans are the cheapest option in the test and in the real world. $23 grand buys you an Ody LX, half the cost of a Sequoia. And you can get an EX-L for $27 grand, less than a base cloth FWD Acadia.
 
Minivans wins BIG when it comes to price.

"Which one would you choose?"
 
Though the Odyssey is the practical of the bunch, I know I'd choose the Acadia. It's a great comprimise of the two, and I actually like the way it looks. It's also the smallest (by an inch in length!). Ofcourse, when it comes to to the most passenger comfort, the Minivan is the winner right now. But the Acadia gets close- closer than anything that isn't Suburban sized. And you don't get 9 miles to the gallon. So the rankings are right. But I do have to say the Acadia did pretty well.

Wow, many of the commentors here just don't get it. They knew that the SUV was better for people who actually need to go off road or tow. The article is to hopefully convince people who aren't car nuts that minivans are better for them in every possible way than ginormous resource intensive SUVs.
 
The negative attitudes being expressed here are doing more to create the "minivan stigma" than the vehicles themselves.

Huh?
 
We get it. We're just commenting on the fact that SUVs—in this test—had their "ace in hole" canceled my negating their main advantage, that being towing and off-roading. By doing so, a this road test wasn't even needed, as the results were obvious: minivans win hands down.
 
You're reading far more into my comments than what I was saying.

I just think that Edmunds stated that disclaimer right up front, and repeated it enough times that any reader will know what criteria they used.
 
The only concern is the headline reader that never read the article, and that would be their own fault.
 
I think the exceptions mentioned above are mostly small, niche markets (hunting, off roading). I mean, the Seqouia is too big to fit on most off road trails anyway. The wheelbase is about 20" too long. We're talking about less than 1% of families, minimal compared to the amount of kids that play soccer or baseball, for instance.
 
Towing may be the exception, but even those numbers don't come close to the number of kids playing sports or just heading to the mall.
 
Edmunds aimed at the bulk of the segment, and in my opinion, nailed it. The average family takes their kids to soccer, car pools the kids to school and after school activities like Girl Scouts, and goes to the mall on weekends.
 
And let's face it, that is where most large SUVs end up - in mall parking lots. Our local mall is full of them. Not a trace of off road mud on them, not ever.

AJ you're living in suburbia. Spend some time out west, or in the mountains, or any rural part of the country—anywhere out of the environment that you normally live in on a daily basis. You're completely ignoring that customer, or at the very least brushing them off as a very minor customer base.

I'd like to see some numbers, in that case. I just think the number of hunters is very small compared to the number of Soccer Moms and NASCAR Dads driving their big SUVs to the mall. Trust me, there are literally millions of them.

All you have to do is look at a map of the USA. It's huge. I'm not just talking about hunters. Folks who live in rural areas have a much better chance of using SUVs as intended simply because there's much greater access to rough and/or unpaved roads.
 
As you know, I live right on the edge of rural Maryland, and I see it all the time. The access road to where (my wife) Deb works is unpaved and rutted, and she has to deal with that daily. What I'm stating is not unusual for those living in the country.

"And let's face it, that is where most large SUVs end up - in mall parking lots. Our local mall is full of them. Not a trace of off road mud on them, not ever."
 
I've never seen a sports car owner take their car to the track.
 
Therefore no one ever uses their sports car for more then posing, not ever.

Sure there are rutted and unpaved roads out there and the US is huge, but you make it sound as though you are going on African safari. These roads can't be bad enough to require the ground clearnace of the Seqouia and that much power.I've gone off-roading on several occasions in my Holden Barina (Chevy Aveo) and a friend's Ford Focus, and although we had to be cautious on scraping the bottom of the car, we could do it, and these are rough Aussie outback roads. These roads were rutted from erosion and had trees partially blocking them, and we did fine. I can't imagine even the back American roads (except for the Rubicon Trail and similar) being any worse.
 
Once again, the vast majority of SUV's never see mud. Most aren't even 4WD. According the US Census, 80.6% of Americans live in cities. The remaining 19.4% are on rural roads and, with the exception of some wild parts of the west, most of these roads are paved. The American road is system is truly amazing and all towns are connected by a asphalt road. Edmunds is going for the vast majority of the population which will be using these vehicles for shopping, soccer, and holidays.
 
I don't doubt at all that some people may be doing some serious off-roading, and need the capabilities of a Seqouia, but when it comes down to it, what percentage is it really? Going on a gravel road in my opinion does not require it.

FWIW
 
I normally shy away from long protracted debates here, such as what this has become. However, it's something I feel strongly about, and I really feel those living in suburbia are often out of touch with those living in the country.
 
While, those folks do visit malls, they also drive in many other types of environments that aren't so minivan-friendly.

I can believe that, but again, Edmunds target the average family. 80.6% is a clear majority.
 
Off Road Hunting Truck Monthly can target the subset of the other 19.4% that do.
 
firstwagon wrote: "I've never seen a sports car owner take their car to the track."
 
Are you kidding? Have you ever been to a track?
 
When I went to Summit Point there were hundreds of them driving on the track. Most had state tags, so they're street legal.
 
Go to a Friday-at-the-track event and you'll see tons of WRXs, 350Zs, Mustangs, Camaros, etc.
 
If you haven't seen them it's because you're not looking in the right places.
 
And yes, I've been off road, and like I said, there were no 4 door full-sized SUVs there. Just Jeeps, pickups, and a few older mid-size Pathfinder and 4Runners.
 
Suburbans, Expeditions, and Seqouias are just too big for off roading, hence those aren't the vehicles you see on off road trails.
 
Bob is right, a lot of these vehicles are bought and used as intended, and there's nothing wrong with that.
 
My point remains that *most* Seqouias will see far more mall or soccer field duties than they ever will towing or off road.

I'm glad the point was brought up about sports car drivers and how many actually take them to the track. Most don't ever get used for any type of competitive racing, and are used more as a status symbol. It's good the comparision came up, because many SUV's are used exactly for that too; as a fashion statement.
 
I see more likelihood of a sports car being driven hard on the local boulevard or empty car park then an SUV treading through the wilderness

As usual, this is just another case of others telling people what they should or should not buy. Does that bother you? It does me.

I disagree, Bob. Edmunds is making a recommendation as to what best meets the needs of that 80% of the population, what they call the average family.
 
I'm not anti-SUV at all, in fact they are certainly the best tool for certain things, like pulling a large boat or a horse trailer.
 
In fact I'll go as far as telling you that you SHOULD buy the Sequoia if those are your true needs.
 
Why is this a lot different than sports cars?
 
Because sports cars are not targeted at families that don't need them. They are more honest - you know exactly what you are getting, and well aware of the trade-offs you make in order to get something sporty.
 
Plus sports cars sell in *tiny* volumes. SUVs represent half the auto market.
 
Large SUVs should indeed be targeted at hunters, fisherman, and boat/horse owners with large trailers.
 
I have no problem with a Sequoia being used as it was intended to be used by design. I just think that most of them are not.

"Why is this a lot different than sports cars?
   
Because sports cars are not targeted at families that don't need them. They are more honest - you know exactly what you are getting, and well aware of the trade-offs you make in order to get something sporty."
  
Unlike the JD Power (or was it Consumer Reports) Fiasco a few years ago where the #1 Complaint about the H2 was it's shockingly poor Fuel Economy, I doubt too many people buy a Large SUV expecting good fuel economy. Ditto Handling. Ditto Parking. Ditto Value. I'm pretty sure most people are fully aware of the sacrifices they've made for vanity. And, obviously, it's worth it to them.
  
Also, it's all light-duty trucks Combined (Including Minivans!) that make up Half the market. Full-Size SUV's are a Way smaller percentage.
  
And anyways, the difference in MPG between a minivan and a large crossover is minimal. And even a large crossover has Way more room than most people could ever use. So what's the big deal?

"firstwagon wrote: "I've never seen a sports car owner take their car to the track."
  
Are you kidding? Have you ever been to a track? "
 
I was being sarcastic (sorry, that doesn't always come through in print).
 
I know full well lots sport car owners take their cars to the track just as I know far more SUV owners go off road. I see them all the time. Once you could drive up any forest road or logging road and rarely see anyone. Now it's almost congested somedays.
 
What annoys me are people who see an SUV at the mall and come to the conclusion that that's the only place they go.(Or see one without a trailer and assume they don't tow anything). I see sports cars at the mall, isn't it also right for me to conclude that it's the only place they go?
 
I see minivans driving in traffic with only one person in it. Am I correct in assuming that he doesn't need a minivan? Of course not. Most likely his little kids and wife just don't work for the same company as him.
 
I'll admit I haven't seen many (if any) Sequoias off road but I rarely see them on road either (I don't think they sell very well). I see Suburbans off road all the time though. It's a favorite among the hunting crowd because it's big enough to sleep in and it will go anywhere it will fit.
 
festiboi1
 
The purpose of a 4wd is to go where the roads don't go. And yes, sometimes, just sometimes, people who live in cities actually get out of the city.

This discussion, like so many others, is much like the gerbil on the rotating treadmill, in that it's going nowhere fast. Everyone is locked into their positions, and won't budge.
 
I will say this: I've owned 2 mid-size SUVs and one full-size pickup. Did I really need them? Debatable for sure; I thought I did, but my father-in-law thought I was nuts...
 
Regardless, I don't have them any more. Do I miss them? You bet!
 
My guess is that the SUV critics here have never owned a SUV, and just don't get it, as to why they're so popular. I liken it to heated seats: This is a feature often laughed at by many—until you've experienced them.
 
I'll leave it at that. :)

I think 19mpg is a lot more than 15mpg. To me that is a significant difference. It may not be to you, but if enough people agreed with me we may not have oil at $111 per barrel today.
 
Generally speaking I will pick the most efficient tool that gets the job done. If you have a horse trailer or a boat, a large SUV may indeed be the way to go. For most families a minivan is more than enough, making it the more efficient choice (not just in fuel costs, in overall costs).
 
To put it another way - large SUVs are overkill for most families.
 
firstwagon: most of the ones I see don't even have a tow hitch. And again, the ones going off road tend to be the smaller, more nimble ones that are narrow enough to squeeze through those trails.
 
Bob's Explorer wasn't small by any means, but I would not consider it large the way a Sequoia is large. And he had the sand in his undercarriage to prove it was used the way the designers intended, so he gets a pass. ;)

Amen, Bob. I no longer have the Avalanche (traded for a more fuel efficient / fun to drive Malibu), but I *do* miss it just the same. But with kids (and braces being $5k+ for the older one soon), the weakening dollar, rising fuel costs, etc., there just isn't the money to pay for all the fun stuff that I towed / hauled anymore, to say nothing about the extra $$ for gas.
 
Not that my Av did bad on the fuel economy (compared to other full sizers, or even what many seem to get from compact / mid-sized CUVs) at 19-21mpg most tanks. But at 28-30 mpg, plus a lower monthly payment (strangely enough, insurance stayed about the same), the 08 'bu is quite a bit cheaper to operate.
 
My daughter's teeth are thanking me, if nothing else.