Station Wagon vs SUV

1151618202128

Comments

  • jlemolejlemole Member Posts: 345
    You mentioned a run in the Pine Barrens. I assume you mean the New Jersey Pine Barrens? I would love to do something like that, do you know of anything coming up? I used to take my Rodeo through there when I lived in South Jersey. Miles and miles of sugar sand roads interspersed by the occasional mining pit.

    Jon
  • porknbeansporknbeans Member Posts: 465
    Try talking to Paisan, he's even got a webpage on the stuff. (And I'm a big enough geek to have gone to it). :)

    Oh Mike....
    Porknbeans

    Grand High Poobah
    The Fraternal Order of Procrastinators
  • boaz47boaz47 Member Posts: 2,747
    But you have helped to make my point. One of the many posters here has echoed the complaint that SUV owners rarely go off roading anyway. They have even gone so far as to say a AWD wagon would "serve" those same buyers as well. Truth is even AWD wagons don't drift off the hard stuff very often. Yes I have seen Subarus in rallys. I live close to where they have the Rim of the world rally.

    I wasn't just indicating that I didn't see AWD wagons in the events I went to. I have seen lifted Zukes there doing quite well. I have seen old Brats that might climb over a Probe, one of our Jeeps can climb the hood of a F-250. That isn't the point either. The point is there are lots of fire roads, dirt roads through the desert, and dry lake beds. Now from the many posts we have seen in here you would expect that while out on one of these roads I would hardly ever see a SUV. As you said, only about 3 percent of the time? But I do see them. I see lots of lifted Jeeps, true, and that is to be expected. I travel back in the mountains exploring old silver mines and abandoned mills as well. So yes I know I must already be in the minority of SUV and Truck owners. But granting that I do off road you have to admit I would be in a position to see WRXs, Rally cars, Lancers, rally cars, and any number of AWD wagons or vans, driving to or from these events or explorations.

    I know we are expressing opinions in these forums but it does seem strange to complain about the low number of SUV drivers that off road when the number of Rally car drivers may represent an even lower number of drivers using their cars they way they were designed. If you get my point? Who then is the more guilty of being a pretender? Who then is the more worthy of throwing rocks at their reasons for buying their vehicle? The sports car driver that never drives his car at a sporting event, or even to a sporting event. The Rally car driver that never drives his car at or to a rally? Or is the real issue that one vehicle is more popular than the other and somehow that isn't fair?

    See how easy the issue of need and or useage can turn against you? It all just depends on where you are standing.
  • subewannabesubewannabe Member Posts: 403
    are as varied as the imaginations of their owners. i used to drive a '71 duster with lifts, leaf springs from a 'cuda and custom oversize rims i made by welding up and drillling new holes in some steel rims from a ford pick up truck and mounted snow tires on the rear. it was bright lime green and only had the 196 cid straight six and a 3 spd MT on the floor, but it went practically anywhere.
      the funny thing about the wrx wagon, and so many of the new small wagons, is that its shape severlely limits the usability of its rear cargo area unless you fold the rear seats down, thus making the Forester or other small SUV eminently more practical. i think that must be why the ford escape is so popular...smaller SUV but retains the higher driving position and the cuboid storage area.
       As for the offroaders in this part of North carolina, almost all the climbers, runners , paddlers and bikers drive subarus, especially outback wagons, or small to mid size japanese SUV's..nobody in the tahoe/expedition class, and even my exploer is the big car in the bunch. we drive to the trail head and hike, ride or paddle from there. subaru's very public sponsorship of so many outdoor sport events around here probably helps their popularity with that crowd. there really isnt anyplace in the mountains to do high speed offroading in your vehicle...its just too steep and tight.
  • ateixeiraateixeira Member Posts: 72,587
    Jon: yes, in NJ. Drove by a few of the mob's corpses, I'm sure. ;-)

    Did you go to the Rim of the World Rally this year? NASIOC had one of its biggest meets ever. It was huge. I bet the parking lot was 30% Subies.

    OK, you see SUVs, and hardly see Subies. Let's keep something in mind, though. Subaru has a 1% overall market share, and that's only recently. It was more like 0.5% back in 1995.

    You're more likely to see older vehicles on those trails, so if 1 out of every 200 vehicles you see are Subarus, then that means the same percentage of Subaru owners go off road. In other words, they are statistically well represented.

    What % of owners Rally their Subies? I'm sure it's about the same as the % of SUVs off road. Good point.

    But at least the AWD is in use full-time. Look how often it rains or snows. Here in DC, we've had something like 7 dry weekend so far this YEAR! The extra ground clearance gets you over speed bumps without scraping the bumpers.

    So sure, they're lighter duty than SUVs, but you're more likely to use them as intended even in daily driving.

    Most 4x4s have part-time systems, those will get used much less often, is my point.

    -juice
  • paisanpaisan Member Posts: 21,181
    And I've never seen the following offroad:

    Suburban
    Expendition
    Excursion
    F250
    Dodge 2500
    Chevy 2500HD

    Rarely seen:
    Blazer S10
    Blazer K5
    Explorer
    Trailblazer
    Yukon
    Tahoe
    F150
    1500 series Dodge/Chevy
    Pathfinder

    Most often seen:
    4-runner
    Discoveries
    Jeep Wranger
    Jeep Cherokee
    Isuzus
    Suzuki

    Most of the serious off-roaders build up their vehicles from stock and therefore can't be counted into "offroad vehicles" I'm not talking skid plates and minor 1-2" lift or rockerbars or bumpers, I'm talking about 4" body lifts 2" suspension lifts, sawzalled fenders, lockers, etc. etc.

    Check out my webpage, especially the events section. http://isuzu-suvs.com for pics of subies offroad as well as all kinds of offroaders.

    -mike
  • boaz47boaz47 Member Posts: 2,747
    with Subarus. Compared to WRC you would think they only raced Subarus in SCCA. I still am having trouble getting into rally racing. It is a bit like watching speeders go by on a old deserted highway. The people I went with are into this thing and we packed in a lunch and cold drinks and ate a lot of dirt. I am afraid the Baja 1000 is as close to Rally racing as I had ever been before. And in that you could see one class pass another now and then. Seemed a bit more like racing as my North American mind would recognize.

    What I would have expected however is that these cars would be all over our many desert roads and dry lake beds simply because they see quite a few now that the WRX has been imported. But no, they try to turn them into street racers and that quite frankly is not their strongest suite. Remember that except for the mountains where I live most people will get maybe 14 days of wet streets all year. Half of those wet streets are at night when people are at home. A stock WRX is no real match for a RSX on a winding twisty mountain road without some serious straight a ways.

    Different areas so different cars interest enthusiasts.
  • paisanpaisan Member Posts: 21,181
    I beg to differ, typical un-informed opinion there. AWD helps in both wet and dry. So you think an RSX in a tarmac type areana STOCK for STOCK will outpace the WRX? I'd like to see that.

    -mike
  • ateixeiraateixeira Member Posts: 72,587
    14 days of wet streets in SoCal, maybe.

    Like I said, in DC we've had only a few weekends so far this year that were dry. We had 6 significant accumulations of snow, including that blizzard with a couple of feet.

    And we're south of the Mason-Dixon line! :-)

    mike does have a point, I test drove several FWD-based AWD vehicles, the ones that are in FWD until you slip. They feel a lot different in day-to-day driving, for instance they have torque steer. They also push more (understeer more). I just didn't like the way they felt.

    With Subies, torque steer is non-existent, and they handle more neutral. In the dry. In the wet there is no comparison, AWD rules.

    -juice
  • lark6lark6 Member Posts: 2,565
    Re post #871: I was there and saw juice do it, heck I was driving behind him myself.

    subewannabe: I ran with that NC crowd in the late '80s - early '90s; that was my intro to Subies. Lots of work and play in north GA/TN/NC/SC. Memories of that time and friends' long-term successes with the cars stuck in my mind when I went car shopping in fall 1999. And here I am.

    Ed
  • ateixeiraateixeira Member Posts: 72,587
    Dug up some pics:

    http://www.imagestation.com/album/?id=4291908527

    You have to register with imagestation but it's worth it. It's free and they send very little junk mail.

    Notable pics include:

    1. Karl Shieble's signed poster to our club
    3. My Forester at the beach
    4. Forester in Australia catching major air
    5. Forester at Rally Cross
    6. Forester at Auto Cross
    7. OB towing a 4Runner out of a mud pit
    15. Pine Barrens water crossing
    17. Me driving through the woods

    OK, I'm the odd ball that actually does some of this stuff, but it's never suffered any damage whatsoever.

    -juice
  • oregonboyoregonboy Member Posts: 1,650
    Juice,

    Are you perpetuating the (photochopped) airborn Forester myth? Bad boy!

    -james
  • subewannabesubewannabe Member Posts: 403
    sounds exactly like my reaction to gran prix racing through the canyons of downtown motown in the 80's....you heard an astounding amount of noise, a blurred object travelling incredibly fast moved down the two block section of street you could see, and was gone. unless you were on one of the hairpin turns, you had no idea who just drove by. admittedly, those gran prix folks dress nicer than the dirt eaters. does subie sponsor a gran prix team?
    mark
  • boaz47boaz47 Member Posts: 2,747
    Yes, I felt much the same when I went to the Long Beach Grand Prix. But the same car did come by more than once so at least I could tell which one was passing by more often.
     
    Do I believe a FWD RSX is faster on the dry pavement? Sure, almost 1000 pounds lighter. 200 HP sits lower stock and lower still after market. About as close to a type R as I will ever drive. In the Touring car events the Type R and BMWs are about the top of the class. Mazda is making a strong run and I think they even got Foo to drive for them. AWD adds weight and weight doesn't care how many wheels are driving it around a corner. Speed Challenge champs 2000 was a Type R I believe. 2001 may have been a type R as well. 2002 was a BMW I believe. I could go back and check if you would like?

    Let me give you an example for my statement. Speed World Challenge Touring cars at Road Atlanta. 42 cars were entered. Fastest qualifying AWD car was a Audi A4 at number 35. Fastest Subaru was number 36. Number one qualifying was a BMW RWD and number two and three were Mazda ProtegeES and then another BMW. AWD doesn't help all that much in the dry I am afraid. At least not enough to cover the weight penalty it would seem.
  • paisanpaisan Member Posts: 21,181
    I guess you forgot my whole premis... STOCK TO STOCK. Not race prepped, I'm talking bone stock. And the RSX is 2100lbs? wow didn't realize that. If you want to talk racing, we can move the discussion over to the racing thread in the news and views area.

    -mike

    Edit...

    RSX= 2721lbs, 161hp/141lbs torque, 6" of ground clearance, and 101.2" wheelbase
    WRX= 3126lbs, 227hp/217lbs torqu, 6.1" of clearance and 99.4" wheelbase
    RSX type S= 2778lbs, 200hp/142lbs torque, 5.9" of clearance and 101.2" wheelbase
    WRX STi = 3263lbs, 300hp/300lbs torque, 5.7" of clearance and a 100" wheelbase

    I bet the F/R balance is closer to 50/50 on the subies also.
  • boaz47boaz47 Member Posts: 2,747
    But Race prepped or not AWD doesn't seem to be the big ticket for road racing touring cars. Say what you will they have been around for a while and still I see Acura, BMW and Mazda but not Subarus up front. If sir there is an advantage wouldn't they all be switching over? The debate over RWD, FWD, and AWD has taken place in other forums and no one has yet to provide that the extra weight involved in AWD offsets the advantages of lighter cars in that type of racing. In my preferred form of Racing AWD is a disadvantage, and in the results of Touring cars racing in SCCA it seems to be a disadvantage.

    This also has very little to do with SUVs and wagons.

    If it is an advantage maybe you can tell us why Subaru isn't tearing up the track at the Speed Challenge tracks? Looking at MotorTrends Slalom results it doesn't seem to give an advantage there either. So, it isn't an advantage in a drag race, it isn't an advantage in a SCCA touring Car event, and it isn't an advantage in a car magazines slalom results. Just where is it or what gives it an advantage in the dry stuff? By the way, MororTrend even spent the big bucks for the special wheels and tires on their WRX and still they were disappointed in the Slalom times that extra, close to 4k, got them. Being a Subaru fan I am sure you have read it?
  • paisanpaisan Member Posts: 21,181
    I don't read rags like MT and CD.

    If you've ever driven an AWD car on a regular basis you'll realize there is a distinct advantage, not just some # crunching theortical stuff. Heck if you read magazines like that you'd think every SUV will rollover, especially an Isuzu Trooper that I drive as well, and never rolled it yet, even when driving it pretty much on the edge. So "theoretical" test are just that.

    So in your little niche of racing AWD isn't warranted, big deal, good for you. You say you live in the mts, surely the WRX turbo would be at an advantage over a NA RSX just on that fact alone. How many AWD miles do YOU have under your belt? I have about 200K of RWD, 120K of FWD and about 300K+ of AWD. That's a pretty big sampling, and I'll take AWD then RWD then FWD anyday.

    -mike
  • steverstever Guest Posts: 52,454
    The debate over RWD, FWD, and AWD has taken place in other forums is very true. Tidester and I just got Shifty to reopen the Which is better? AWD, FWD or RWD? discussion since this same kind of conversation was taking over another topic in SUVs. Please join in over there too.

    Steve, Host
  • boaz47boaz47 Member Posts: 2,747
    I don't wish to debate what can't be proved. People have opinions and ancillary observations seldom change those opinions. I have had more than one AWD car and one of them was a Subaru. While it took corners pretty well and was an advantage to me in snow and rain it did not do better than my Prelude, so for me and the kind of driving I do I am not convinced. For someone that believe in AWD as the solution to traction problem no amount of personal experience or track results will dissuade them from believing AWD is the answer for all surfaces. The problem wasn't resolved in the AWD-FWD-RWD forum, it won't be resolved here.
  • ateixeiraateixeira Member Posts: 72,587
    james: that is *not* fake. In fact, I got it from the Yahoo Forester club, and they have photos of the take-off and landing, too. You clearly see it take off at a crazy angle, and then landing nose first into the sand.

    In all there is a series of 5 photos that show the entire jump.

    boaz47: don't forget that Audi was eating up the BTTC until they banned AWD.

    Also, it's interesting that you bring up the Prelude, which is not at all a typical FWD car. In fact, it's reveled for not being like most front drivers. Let's call it a rare exception.
    -juice
  • rshollandrsholland Member Posts: 19,788
    << While it took corners pretty well and was an advantage to me in snow and rain it did not do better than my Prelude,... >>

    I too have a Prelude and two Subies. The Subies are so much better than the Prelude in adverse conditions, I can't believe you're making that statement.

    Bob
  • rshollandrsholland Member Posts: 19,788
    I don't read rags like MT and CD.

    If you've ever driven an AWD car on a regular basis you'll realize there is a distinct advantage, not just some # crunching theortical stuff. Heck if you read magazines like that you'd think every SUV will rollover, especially an Isuzu Trooper that I drive as well, and never rolled it yet, even when driving it pretty much on the edge. So "theoretical" test are just that.


    It's a mistake to write off magazine road tests. There's a lot of valuable info to be found in controlled magazine road tests. You don't have to agree with everything, but they'll find stuff you or I will never find. The bigger mistake, IMO, is not to read them.

    Bob
  • ateixeiraateixeira Member Posts: 72,587
    FWD will fail in climbing a steep, slippery hill, because all the weight transfers to the rear axle. Nothing will save you, no traction control, no fancy differential.

    I bet Bob can't make it up his driveway in the Prelude if the ground is frozen (and not yet sanded).

    I saw a Prelude pull two jet skis out of the water on a wet boat ramp. It managed, but it was pretty funny. Lots of tire spin.

    Any how, AWD strikes a nice balance between cost, efficiency, and what people actually need, vs. what brochures have them dreaming about doing.

    -juice
  • boaz47boaz47 Member Posts: 2,747
    Let me rephrase. In snow and wet conditions my Subaru was exceptional. In the typical dry weather we have here the Prelude was much better are carving up corners. In case my sentence wasn't clear on that point. By the way my old Civic SI hatchback seemed quicker in the corners as well. The hatch is as close to a fast cornering wagon as I have ever gotten so far.

    The subject is still wagons and SUVs isn't it? *S*
  • ateixeiraateixeira Member Posts: 72,587
    We inevitably end up talking about AWD, because when you consider a wagon as a subsitute for an SUV, you're pretty much gonna want AWD.

    -juice
  • wwestwwest Member Posts: 10,706
    I'm hoping that the upcoming RX230/e will have electrics at the rear and gas at the front, an almost ideal AWD setup.

    Now if someone would put gas at the rear and electrics at the front....
  • ateixeiraateixeira Member Posts: 72,587
    I think a through-the-road AWD setup would be very interesting.

    I do agree about the gas powering the rear axle, though.

    -juice
  • wwestwwest Member Posts: 10,706
    "through the road"
  • oregonboyoregonboy Member Posts: 1,650
    I too have seen the 5 photo series. I don't remember where... but the discussion was debunking the flying Forester myth and pointed out that the sequence was a fairly transparent fraud.

    As I recall (and this was some time ago), there are inconsistencies in the background: the people on the hill, in particular. And the Forester isn't even the same vehicle in all 5 shots. That seems like a gross mistake on the part of the "photo-chopper", but that is the way that I remember it.

    You may want to try to find the sequence again to confirm if it's a fake or if I'm delusional.

    -james :)
  • ateixeiraateixeira Member Posts: 72,587
    Through-the-road means that the front and rear axles and powertrains would be independent, that the road was the only thing forcing them to rotate at the same speed.

    In other words, you'd have a regular FWD vehicle, with no driveshaft going to the rear axle. The rear axle (or even each individual rear wheel) would have its own electric motor, independent from the gas powertrain.

    It's sort of the opposite of Honda's IMA, Integrated Motor Assist, which lets the engine and the electric motor operate in conjunction with each other on the same axle (front only).

    -juice
  • ateixeiraateixeira Member Posts: 72,587
    Actually I found all 5 pics. They look real to me.

    It's a blue Forester S, pre-2001. You can see the color and the rims in every photo so it is the same vehicle. There are two people in the background that are in each photo except the middle one, when they are entirely blocked by the vehicle.

    The guy who owned it was an active member of the Yahoo Forester club, probably back in 1999 or so, when it was discussed. There's no reason not to believe it.

    If you want a copy of all 5, lemme know.

    -juice
  • oregonboyoregonboy Member Posts: 1,650
    Juice, I would like to see the whole set again. I listed my email on Edmunds so you can send them to me.

    If you'd like, I could send you some nice Subie 360 pics and a happy-face Forester.

    -james
  • ateixeiraateixeira Member Posts: 72,587
    Off they went.

    I realize lots of stuff is photochopped nowadays, and some are really good, but to be honest I don't think these are. Perhaps there was so much talk about it being Urban Legend that it became so!

    -juice
  • steverstever Guest Posts: 52,454
    Judging by the activity in there, others agree with you. Everyone wants to argue this issue in car specific discussions it seems anyway.

    Of course, I forgot all about the relatively active one: AWD, FWD, RWD Wagons - Which is the Best?

    Steve, Host
  • subewannabesubewannabe Member Posts: 403
    the Gary Fisher bikes "Ultimate Trails" tour was in my town this weekend. Their official vehicle : an Outback H6 3.0 with a yakima pod on top, towing a 6 x 9 enclosed trailer full of bikes and gears, both painted in an awesome black, red and yellow matching scheme. Of course, Subaru is one of the Ultimate Trails sponsors.
        As summer vacationing in these mountains hits its peak, I continue to search for the FIRST oversize luxury SUV towing anything. Still lots of pickups towing campers and RV's towing everything imaginable, including SUV's!
  • ncvolncvol Member Posts: 196
    I just got back from a long weekend in the NC mountains (Boone/Blowing Rock area) and was impressed as to how useless and dangerous full-size SUV's are up there. Many of the mountain roads I was on are narow 2 lanes with no shoulder whatsoever. Even in my wife's Honda Accord, you worried every time a Yukon or Suburban was coming from the other direction. I don't see how two vehicles that size can even pass each other. That's not even mentioning how slow one of those would have to go just to get around the turns. It's no wonder you see so many Outbacks in the mountains.
  • ateixeiraateixeira Member Posts: 72,587
    That must've been a heavy trailer. Subaru of America only allows 2400 lbs towing, though in the UK they let the same vehicles haul nearly twice as much.

    -juice
  • subewannabesubewannabe Member Posts: 403
    juice, if you have seen a top of the line gary fisher mountain bike, you'd know why the outback could tow that load...four of those bikes add up to approx 130 lbs! The windows were tinted really dark as part of the paint scheme, so i couldnt see whether it was an AT or MT in the outback.

    I wonder if the greater torque and hp on the 2005 outback or Legacy Gt will increase the towing capacity...or is that braking/ frame/ suspension limitation on those wagons?
  • ateixeiraateixeira Member Posts: 72,587
    It's our litigous society. In the UK, even a 2.0l base Impreza can tow 3960 lbs.

    Subaru of America is *very* conservative. Most manufacturers are, for instance they require trailer brakes if you tow over 1000 lbs. Thing is, most trailers under 3000 lbs don't have brakes. So what do you do if you have a 1000-3000 lb load?

    Even full-size SUVs and trucks have that restriction.

    -juice
  • revkarevka Member Posts: 1,750
    From Edmunds Special Reports: 10 Tips for Choosing an Earth-Friendly Family Hauler. This may be helpful for those trying to decide between a station wagon and suv. Let us know what you think!

    Revka
    Host
    Hatchbacks & Wagons Boards
  • hesitanthesitant Member Posts: 17
    I'd like to hear about some of the wagons and SUVs that seat 6. Which are the best for gas mileage and a good ride?

    I don't need off-road capability, just the space. I have a family with two teenagers, a pre-teen, and a child. I have driven a full-size van for the last 12 years and now want a smaller vehicle that has fun new features, a sun roof, a comfortable ride, is quiet inside, gets good gas mileage, has rear air conditioning control (I would also prefer dual front air control), and really fits the 6 of us. I do not want a mini-van (just tired of vans). I have been searching and comparing vehicles on this site for quite a while, but I have to go a long way before I find out if it only seats 5. For example, I just decided to consider wagons since many of the new ones are quite sporty looking. But they don't tell me right off how many they seat. Or if I ask for comparison vehicles to something like the Honda Pilot which seats 8, it puts up others that only seat 5.

    I have driven and considered the Chrysler Pacifica, Volvo S80 (actually can get 4 in the back seat), and the Acura MDX. I would like to see a Honda Pilot but can't locate one in my area, and received a message from Edmunds that local dealers would contact me, but that was a week ago and I haven't heard anything.

    I have not driven them yet, but I understand that I can get a bench front seat for the Toyota Avalon and the Dodge Intrepid. But Edmunds comments that the Avalon is pricey and I suspect that the Intrepid is not close enough to the luxury ride that I would like to come close to for an in-between price. My husband wants to consider a Ford Expedition because they are on sale in our area for about $6,000 off right now, but I haven't driven one and your site says that it drives as big as it looks. I don't want another BIG car! We've looked at vehicles priced up to $40,000, most being in the $35,000 range. However, my husband would like to stay in the $25-30,000 price range, and I suspect I may need to go with a used vehicle to hit that.

    Any comments from anyone else about the vehicles that I have mentioned, or about any wagons or other vehicles, new or used, would be greatly appreciated. Thanks.
  • subewannabesubewannabe Member Posts: 403
    new, thats gonna limit you to the intrepid or the avalon, or a stripped expedition on end of year clearance sale. i dont know if any of the big 3 0ffer bench seats up front in their full size sedans...crown vic, etc.

    good luck. 05 crossovers from subaru and audi will fill your bill, but probably not for under $30K (definitely not the audi A7)
    Mark
  • hesitanthesitant Member Posts: 17
    Don't want to have to wait for 05 crossovers to come.

    Used is OK. For example, you mentioned Audi. Do they have anything now that works? If so, but it is too expensive, I can look for one that is, let's say, 2 years old.

    I do plan to look at the Intrepid, but my local dealer does not have a bench seat for me to try.

    Haven't made it to the Toyota dealer yet, but I want to see the Avalon with a front bench and see if they have an SUV that seats 6.

    Is a "crown vic," a "grandmother" looking car?
  • jk27jk27 Member Posts: 244
    I'm the proud owner of a 2002 Buick Rendezvous CXL. Mine seats 7 (I got the 50/50 split-folding bench seats in the middle instead of captain's chairs which would seat 6). You said you don't need off-road capability; you can purchase the RDV with 2 wheel (front wheel) drive or AWD (Versatrack, on demand 4 wheel drive). You want a good ride; holy mackerel, the Buick has an awesome ride, I daresay luxurious! Think luxury sedan -- not truck -- ride. You want good mileage; the RDV gets 19/26 for the FWD model (18/24 for AWD) and that's regular, not premium gas. Not bad for a vehicle with 108.9 cu. ft of cargo capacity, with 2nd and 3rd seats removed. The RDV is extremely quiet inside -- impressively so. Even the base RDV comes with a V6. You may not win any sprints, but it's got more than enough power for my family! Pricing: $26,300 list for base CX model (still nicely equipped), plus there's $3,000 cash back right now or 0% financing for 60 months. One last thing: this is the best stereo I have EVER heard in any vehicle. I went with the six disc in-dash changer (8 speakers, including 2 subwoofers) and it's simply amazing. 2003 models come with a DVD/ceiling mounted TV option. Oh, and the back doors open like a conventional car -- not like a van. And the back door windows open!
  • p0926p0926 Member Posts: 4,423
    Of course it's really just a rebadged Aztek :-)

    -Frank P.
  • olrdvolrdv Member Posts: 53
    p0926,
    The RDV has the same but 5" longer platform of the Aztek, the rear suspension is different, can have 3 rows of seats, etc etc.
    Do yourself a favor, go to a Buick Dealer and try one. I am sure you will talk different, it happened to me too.
  • jk27jk27 Member Posts: 244
    "Of course it's really just a rebadged Aztek"

    Oh, please! There's always an Aztek basher in the crowd. Sorry, but that's not a correct statement, Frank. While, the Aztek and the Rendezvous share the same 3.6L V6 engine, they're very different vehicles. It might be said that they're cousins, but certainly not twins! The wheelbase of the Rendezvous is 112", the Aztel is 108". This helps give the RDV a better ride than the Aztek. The Rendezvous is 187" long and the Aztek is 182". The Rendezvous is 69" tall and the Aztek is 67". Of course, the interiors are completely different, with the Aztek appealing more to the Gen-X'ers with orange and black instrumentation. The RDV has emerald green analog gauges -- very elegant. And, the rest of the interiors are very different -- from materials, to colors, to design -- with the RDV being much more luxurious, refined and comfortable.

    If you're looking for a sub-25k 6 or 7 passenger vehicle, you at least ought to give the RDV a test-drive. Oh yeah, the Aztek doesn't come with third row seating, while the RDV does (no doubt because the RDV is longer!)
  • subewannabesubewannabe Member Posts: 403
    if you're serious about looking at used, and depending on the size of your kids, there are lots of possibilities. For example, my local Audi/Porsche/Volkswagen/Mitsubishi/Isuzu/Buick dealer has n '01 Audi-Certified A6 Avant Quattro with 8,000 miles on it ( sales manager's wife drove it)and the optional rear facing third row seat.The A6 Avant is an amazingly luxurious car, but it wont work once the kid(s) in the third row get over 5 feet tall.It could probably be had for a tad under $30K. A fully loaded used Rendevous for the same $$. In 6 months, a Chrysler Pacifica!
    Lots of options if you are patient and a smart shopper for used cars.
    Good luck!
  • jk27jk27 Member Posts: 244
    Let's see ... a used 2001 Audi Quattro for "a tad under 30K" ... or a brand new 2003 Buick Rendezvous CX with full warranty for 23K. I'd go for the Rendezvous. Take a test drive and see which you like better.

    P.S. The Rendezvous has no restrictions for 5 footers in the third row! I'm 6'3" and I fit comfortably in the back row!
  • paisanpaisan Member Posts: 21,181
    You get that great GM quality!

    -mike
Sign In or Register to comment.

Your Privacy

By accessing this website, you acknowledge that Edmunds and its third party business partners may use cookies, pixels, and similar technologies to collect information about you and your interactions with the website as described in our Privacy Statement, and you agree that your use of the website is subject to our Visitor Agreement.