|
|
Has there been a blog where we're asked to name the ugliest cars? (I If not how about one?)....Sorry Doug, but the Rendezvous would be pretty high on my list.
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Philadelphia, PA United States of America |
|
|
A rental Chevy Astro Van took me and 5 other family members from Philadelphia through Chicago, S.Dakota, Wyoming, and Montana to Seattle down I-5 to LA, Vegas, the Grand Canyon, through the Rockies and back to Philly. All with a body on frame chassis and a 4.3L 195hp V6.
If I didn't want a CTS so bad, I was considering getting a minivan just to be different. 30 year old single person with a minivan? That'd be pretty hot. Unfortunately my parking spot behind the house is pretty small so that might not work.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Philadelphia, PA United States of America |
|
|
My co-worker has a Rendevous and loves it. She traded in an Isuzu Tropper so the jump in refinement was huge. She actually appreciates all of the features such as the driver information center, OnStar, etc. Her dream vehicles are the H3 and Infiniti QX56 but gas prices got here into a slightly used Buick and she's loved it ever since. She claims it has more cargo room than the Trooper as she was able to fit all of her daughter's dorm crap in with the seats out of the way.
|
|
|
|
|
|
SUVs = the auto equivalent of a comb-over and gold chain. "I'm milddle-aged, have kids, need space but I want people to believe I'm hip and cool, so I won't opt for the car-based wagon or the minivan. I'll get something tall, with a tough name, that sounds like I'm riding shotgun with Lewis and Clark."
The SUV people aren't fooling anyone. We can see the kids, just as easily as we spy your scalp! *
This is directed at the 99% that purchase an SUV/CUV to floss, not to use it for towing 10,000 lbs of equipment.
|
|
|
|
|
|
^^ LOL agree.
I had to hire a minivan lasy year for a week to haul some visiting relatives around SoCal for a week. Ended up with a scruffy, base, last model, short wheel base Caravan. I actually enjoyed driving round in that van. Was good on the freeway, not bad on gas, easy to drive and park. I'd get a van over a SUV if I needed that kind of carrying capacity
|
|
|
|
syke
- Apr 10, 2008 1:42 pm
(#37 Total: 51)
|
|
|
|
^^LOL agree in spades.
It's gotten to the point that as soon as I hear, "what about driving in the snow" or "what about hauling a trailer" I realize what they're really saying
"Please don't make me admit that I should be owning a mommyvan!"
And suddenly that one time a year pulling a trailer to the dump for spring cleaning has turned into weekly trips with much-expensive boats on the back . . . . . and a twice a year eight inch snowfall has suddenly turned into what shut down the Donner Party.
Face it folks, if you gotta haul people and goods, you should be driving a mommy van.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Right on, chavis, and let me tell you about the time I put 6 grownups and 10 duffels in my Rendezvous for a trip from North Jersey to Ithaca, N.Y. Everyone swore they were comfy and we got 26MPG despite all the hills. Now, an Odyssey could do that, too, but it's a lot bigger 'n' thirstier for daily driving. What GM should do is develop a new multipurpose vehicle of similar size with more power, more MPG [the Enclave powertrain?].
|
|
|
|
|
|
I don't haul people but I do haul goods = Reg Cab Longbed pickup. I am amazed at what 98in long and sky high(within reason) can fit.
I've got to defend 2wd trucks for a minute here. Small pickups that I have driven seem to have horrible traction in the snow but my long wheelbase seems to provide much more. Add GY triple treads to the mix and my pickup did well last season in Mammoth Lakes and Mt. Charleston. No ditches for me even with a 6MT.
|
|
|
|
7driver
- Apr 10, 2008 3:49 pm
(#40 Total: 51)
|
|
|
|
blueguy,
Nice. Sadly, it's often true in coastal-urban California. But the comparison test itself was about the vehicles, not their typical misinformed drivers. For those with 3 kids and a Bayliner who lives near the high desert (about 1 out of every 3 households in my old neighborhood it seemed), this test is laughable.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Too bad we can't go back in time and redo this comparision as a minivan/CUV/wagon comparision.
All we've done here is show a minivan makes a better minivan then an SUV. Who cares, we all know that. Why didn't you including a test of towing a 3500 lb trailer? Everyone says minivans are good for small loads. OK, lets see how good they are. Do they tow 3500lbs as good as an SUV or do they grunt and wallow all over the road.
Next we could do a test of an Accord vs the M3. Both are used primarly for commuteing so lets see which one is the better commuter car. We all know the M3 is the automotive equivalent of a comb-over and gold chain so we won't do any track testing and will really concentrate on it's faults. I predict the Accord will win.
I like minivans and was hoping for a good test to see if the latest CUV's are good enough people movers to replace the minivan.
Instead we have yet another round of "lets bash the SUV owners because their choice in transportation doesn't agree with ours".
|
|
|
|
|
|
Come on, Firstwagon! Come on.
"All we've done here is show a minivan makes a better minivan then an SUV."
Yes, because the overwhelming majority of SUV owners use them as minivans! So it makes no sense to compare them in another function. It's a proven fact: most SUV owners are buying them because they want a car to haul people and stuff but don't want to be considered soccer moms.
If most SUV owners were using their vehicles primarily for towing, I'm pretty sure Karl wouldn't have included an Odyssey, or even that GMC vehicle. So your mention of towing is irrelevant.
And what SUV bashing are you talking about? I don't see any.
The point of this article is that most SUV owners would be better served by a minivan. Whether they should buy SUVs or minivans is a different story.
|
|
|
|
mnorm1
- Apr 11, 2008 11:56 am
(#43 Total: 51)
|
|
|
|
"SUVs = the auto equivalent of a comb-over and gold chain. "
Now that's funny.
Not sure if it's true. Based on casual observation, I see more women driving SUVs than men, here in the Dallas area. Anyone have real statistics on % of SUV/CUV drivers by gender?
|
|
|
|
|
|
L.A. CA United States of America |
|
|
""SUVs = the auto equivalent of a comb-over and gold chain. "
Now that's funny.
Not sure if it's true. Based on casual observation, I see more women driving SUVs than men, here in the Dallas area."
Good point. Maybe we should say that SUVs are the auto equivalent of cosmetic surgery. "It's great that you are 50 and your face is wrinkle free, but having the exact same expression plastered on your mug 24/7 makes it clear what's really going on here."
|
|
|
|
estreka
- Apr 11, 2008 2:50 pm
(#45 Total: 51)
|
|
|
|
subarctic north - Great Falls, MT |
|
|
"I grew up in Denver driving rear-drive, V8-powered muscle cars"
Keep in mind that muscle cars of that period (not calling you old ;-P) had much narrower tires than cars of today. It's much easier to get traction on an icy road with a 3300 lb sports coupe (Chevelle SS) with narrow tires than a new Mustang with 235mm-wide rear tires. I imagine it would be an exhaustive experience to drive your GT down a snowy highway. Also, not to be rude, but Denver doesn't get that much snow and they have more than enough snow plows to compensate for the 30" of snow they get per year.
|
|
|
|
|
|
L.A. CA United States of America |
|
|
It's a good point. That's another reason why I'm not a fan of the 20-inch tall, 10-inch wide "dubs" people insist on using to wreck their vehicles' driving dynamics.
As for Denver, it's not as COLD all year round as some other parts of the country (gotta love those clear skies, even in winter), but when it snows it snows hard. I know we got 34-inches in ONE snowfall back in 1983. Try living there a couple years and then tell me that snowy roads aren't really an issue in that city.
|
|
|
|
sjrober
- Apr 12, 2008 8:09 am
(#47 Total: 51)
|
|
|
|
I like to comb over comment...I've got a Explorer and a receding hairline, I just choose to go with the short hair and try not to get sunburn on my scalp.
I understand a lot of the comments about SUV's (it only snows X times per year, minivan's get better gas mileage, etc.), but here is my question: I won't give up the curb high ground clearance (frequent heavy rains in Houston make it a necessity for my peace of mind) or a third row, so what are my options?
I'm willing to jump to something with a step change in gas mileage (at least +30%), but what is honestly available? The Explorer averages about 18 combined, which is on par with the Edmunds long term Kia Sedona (though I can't attest to knowing if driving conditions are similar). So until I see a minivan or CUV ith enough clearance to make it through curb high water and get 26 combined mpg, I'll live with my Explorer.
What I would love to see is a Lambda platform with a 3L diesel.
|
|
|
|
|
|
just to throw something in on the whole AWD vs. 2WD debate. I got a legacy because the AWD is convienient. I used to have a saturn with A 5spd manual and TC and I could usually get around in most weather but it was usually quite challenging. Just having to chain up once or twice make the AWD worth it's money. The funny thing is a 4 cyl accord or camry was about the same price as my legacy, they get the same mpg, and I was able to get a wagon (not available on the other two). I really wanted an SUV but I'm happy each day I stop for gas or have to zip up and down a mountain road that I chose the legacy.
|
|
|
|
|
|
I personally have nothing against either an SUV or a Mini-Van, each has it's merit. When it comes to winter my min-van has snow tires with studs (should be mandatory) and it gets around pretty well but can't hold a candle to my SUV. I've heard the arguments here about winter/snow driving but we had (and the winter isn't over) 300 cm+ (9ft+) of snow, each storm dropping on average 30-40cm of snow. A SUV/4WD is safer and gives you a greater piece of mind than a mini-van in those conditions and those conditions can last from November until April/May all be it the snow doesn't last late in the season. You can go to work with just flurries and in 2-3 hours the roads are treacherous. Even after the storm the roads can be plowed but still be snow-packed and icey. With all that said you can easily survive in a min-van here but 4WD and the commanding view of the road the SUV gives you is a great benefit.
P.S. All-Season tires should be banned from winter driving, you wouldn't venture out in a snow storm in your shoes, all Season tires is the equivalent, invest in some snow tires.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Unless one can afford multiple cars for multiple tasks, something that's fun to drive but practical seems best bang for buck. Crossovers like Forester, CRV, RAV4 and others do this well - for its 8.9" ground clearance, the '09 Forester stays surprisingly flat in corners. Hopefully Detroit will do better job with their Xovers in coming years.
|
|
|
|
|
|
"All-Season tires should be banned from winter driving, you wouldn't venture out in a snow storm in your shoes, all Season tires is the equivalent, invest in some snow tires"
Trouble with saying that is "all seasons tires" covers a huge range of tires.
Skinny low buck all seasons are great in the snow on front drive cars. I've also seen all seasons that were nothing more then performance tires with a few extra grooves added... and they sucked in the snow.
|
|
