Do you have a car "wardrobe"? This is a collection of cars that you keep whereby each car serves a different purpose and is driven on different occasions. For example:

1. daily driver: a safe, reliable, low cost to maintain sedan or compact SUV (e.g. Subaru Legacy, Camry, Accord, Mazda 6)

2. volume hauler/off-roader: a large SUV, minivan, or truck (eg. Toyota 4 runner, Land Cruiser, Toyota Sienna, F-150)

3. party car: luxury sedan/SUV for attending formal events, weddings, going to the opera (if you're into that) = Lexus LS, MB S-class, Panamera, Bentley, Escalade

4. fun car: sports car, convertible, or muscle car for weekend use (e.g. Porsche 911, RCF, M4, Corvette, Hellcat, GTR)

Many cars straddle across these categories. The Lexus IS 350 can be used as a daily driver but may also be considered a fun car. The Porsche Macan can be a daily driver, a hauler, and a fun car. The Escalade can be a hauler as well as a party car. I'm not sure I buy into this approach. I would rather have cars/vehicles that have specific functions and are used for specific occasions. Thoughts?

 

I think most people refer to what's in the fleet as they're stable.

 

Never heard of nor would I use the term 'wardrobe' for automobiles. Always stable.

 

I see your point although in the context of this thread, wardrobe is exactly the concept I want to convey....in the sense that a wardrobe provides a person a different "outfit" for a different occasion. "Stable" is just a collection of cars (or horses) with no implied differentiation in purpose, beside racing perhaps.

 

Not really. I do like having two types of vehicles in the household. For instance, I wouldn't want to own two sedans. I like having a luxury sedan for every day and work (I drive a lot for work) and an SUV for trips, weekends, hauling stuff, bad weather, etc.

Now that we have kids the SUV will likely get replaced with a minivan, but the idea is the same.

I love cars but I don't see the value in having a car without a driver to drive it daily, so no third car for me.

 

The reason for this thread is that I have noticed car magazines and blogs rank cars that really shouldn't be ranked in the same category since they don't serve the same function. For instance, Car and Driver ranks the BMW X5 higher than the Lexus GX based mainly on the criterion of "sportiness" or being "fun to drive". But the GX isn't supposed to be a sporty vehicle. It is a luxury volume hauler/off-roader, and a mighty reliable one at that. This faulty analysis is I suspect the result of the magazine's inability (intentionally or unintentionally) to conceptualize cars as tools having different functions. Or, in the metaphor of wardrobes, as clothes intended for different occasions. Car and Driver writers (and Jalopnik, et al) seem to think that all cars should be sporty and fun to drive.....or that we should all be wearing shorts and running shoes to the opera.

 

If you break it down in the most simple of terms both GX and X5 can be had with V8, 7-seats, 4WD/AWD and plenty of cushion and amenities. Their 'missions' may be different but some key similarities result in a comparison test whether that's right or wrong.

 

I think what you're missing is most people cannot afford to purchase multiple vehicles to fit multiple needs. The VAST majority can not, including people who spend 60-70-80k on a vehicle. Because of that, most people have to buy a vehicle that is a compromise, something that fits many of their wants while also suiting their needs.

For instance, someone who wants a sporty car and also needs to tow a small boat or wave runners, etc. They can't afford to purchase a GX and a BMW 530 M Sport. But, they can afford to purchase an X5. Its a compromise.

Thats why Car & Driver rates cars that are a little different but are still within the same category together as opposed to separately. Someone spending $60-70k on an SUV is going to consider both those vehicles, and whichever one they choose is going to depend on whether their need is greater than their want. Car & Driver is not meant to be unbiased. Reviews are never unbiased, their subscribers pay for their opinions of which vehicles are best. So its not a faulty analysis.

I too would rate an X5 over a GX...but...I don't need to tow or go offroad. Most people don't...

 

Yup, refer to it as my stable. My FJ is my bad weather, off road, hauler, drive-and-park in NYC car. My mini is the everyday commuter car (30 miles round trip, this replaced my SC effectively) and my S is the weekend, jaunts out to Hamptons car. But they all get used interchangeably every now and then.

I agree that sometimes the comparisons are confusing at times. I also think this refers most to SUVs since that segment still seems to be evolving. The sedan segments seem more mature and set in their categories. The "compromise" segments are solidly their own segments now (want a sports car, luxury cruiser, inclement weather vehicle? There are myriads to choose from) When buying my FJ, I xshopped lots of unrelated vehicles (from highlander to range rover to Honda). I preferred to buy more task specific vehicles when purchasing.

 

Totally agree with your point, it is also my point. I just am too poor to have a car "wardrobe", and that is the bad thing. If you can only afford one car financially, then you either don't have the cars for the other occasions, or have to make to many compromises. The Porsche Macan is the best example: Jack of all trades, master of none.

This reminds me the 4P's, in this the 4C's: daily car, utility car, status car, fun car. But as every theory evolves, there is yet the 5th C: race car. I know some will add "bike".

 

Unless you live in an urban environment where you literally cannot park two cars, anybody can own a 2nd car/beater. Granted it might be a piece of junk, but my $600 Toyota truck has served me well for the past 4 years and 20,000 miles. Its handy to have something you can just climb into all nasty/sweaty/dirty, haul mulch, haul greasy car parts, drive in the snow, park on the street in ****ty neighborhoods, etc. If you scratch it or dent it who cares.