"Matt Whiting" wrote

The added safety truly is arguable. I've seen comparisons over the
years that don't show any real advantage for twins. The added safety
provided for an engine failure in cruise is offset by the added risk of
an engine failure during takeoff and initial climb.

Taken as a whole I realize the statistics say this is true. Whether those
statistics will apply to a given pilot may depend somewhat on proficiency
and recent experience, recurrency training, and how that individual
approaches his/her flying. Lack of proficiency in any aircraft can get you
killed just as easily as having a lackadaisical attitude towards flying can
when the chips are down.

And the fuselage of most light twins is based on a single so the cargo
space isn't much different other than having baggage storage in the
nose, but you won't fit a snow blower in the nose on most light twins.

The rear seating area of a Seneca has its own door as does the luggage area.
Those rear seats can be taken out in less than a minute, which leaves you
with a massive space that is very easy to access. I realize the Saratoga
has the same fuselage, but the Saratoga isn't exactly fast.

OTOH, neither is a Seneca which reminds me of a radio exchange I had one
evening going through Patuxent airspace. The female controller asked for my
airspeed and then told me not to exceed 170 knots. I told her that
unfortunately that wasn't going to be a problem. :)

BDS