Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!





Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Do you currently own a 2019 or newer RAM pickup? A reporter would like to speak with you. Please reach out to [email protected] by 1/27 for more info.

Station Wagon vs SUV

2456728

Comments

  • boaz47boaz47 Posts: 2,751
    How often do the "need" the back doors. I have seen a report on TV that said that something like 80 percent of the cars on the freeways in my state have one person in them. They could use the back seat in a Coupe just as well.

    Once I decided to move from my Sedan to a wagon I already was prepared to give up 5MPG. I get 33 MPG everyday in my SL-2. I get 24 in my B-2500 and I get 35-40 in my SC-1. Fuel savings is one of the reasons I looked at a Forrester. Yes I could rent a truck instead of having my own pickup. I could rent one for the difference between what a Forrester and my sedan get in gas every month. Some of the new small wagons might qualify as more fuel efficient but not many. The Matrix or the Vibe might prove to be gas sippers I don't know. There is a reason that they sold 4.5 million SUVs in the US last year. It wasn't because people cared what the minority thought they needed but rather what the buyers felt they needed. No one knows what another person "needs". We should be careful as we decide what cars should not be made. Far more people enjoy their SUVs than sports cars but few of us would ever suggest that people stop buying sports cars just because they aren't "practical" for every day use. Wagons are providing and alternative to moving from a Sedan to a small SUV. If we ever limit what cars should be bought by what some small group feels is "needed" life will be dull indeed. If I were to suggest to some of my sport compact cars friends that the Forrester was a sporty car or one that should set the standard to what they "needed" I would have far fewer friends
  • ateixeiraateixeira Posts: 72,587
    For me, all the time. Try loading a 40 pound toddler without a rear door - you'll take your back out on the first day. Believe me, it's not just a convenience, it's a necessity.

    Sedans can't nearly match the carrying capacity of wagons. That's before you even look at the roof rack, which I use often.

    Wagons are versatile, offer utility, and are far more efficient than SUVs. I'm not saying SUVs should sieze to exist, of course not. There are people that actually have boats, and even a few that really do venture off road. But what I'm saying is that 90% of those buyers would be better served by wagons, or crossovers, or whatever label you choose to put on them.

    I don't understand your gas mileage argument. A coupe does not meet my needs, not even close. Ever pack for a road trip with a toddler? Even the sedan won't cut it for me.

    -juice
  • porknbeansporknbeans Posts: 464
    I'm continually shuttling kids from soccer practice to hockey practice to swimming lessons to/from daycare, etc., etc., etc. I need the seating and storage of a SUV or minivan but, don't like the inability to get excited when I find a road that has lot's of twisties. Personally, I don't want a minivan and only own a SUV because it's a company perk.

    I'm looking to replace my wifes car within the next year or so and can't wait for the new crop of crossovers. My wife won't drive a minivan or my SUV because the size scares her. I've driven the VW Passat V6 AWD and had a hoot of a time. It's just too small with too few seats. Putting a rocket pack on the roof rack doesn't make for a comfortable passenger seat or help the gas mileage.

    SUV's are great for the people that NEED them, most of us don't. Most of us need/want a vehicle that seats more than 5 with cargo room for those passengers. The Northeast isn't the only part of the country that gets snow and AWD is nice here in the Midwest also.
    Porknbeans

    Grand High Poobah
    The Fraternal Order of Procrastinators
  • boaz47boaz47 Posts: 2,751
    We can agree that wagons have their place. But once again the current crop is between a Sedan and a SUV. Someone mentioned image and that is what will have to change with wagons. The add people are attempting to do just that by calling some of them "sport" wagons. But in the US where we have far more straight highways than we do winding twisting ones straight line power equals sport. With the exception of the WRX Subaru's don't exactly burn up the road. I can list a whole fleet of SUVs that are quicker in the 1/4 mile. The Mountaineer is almost a full second faster according to Motor Trends Road test 15.6 at 85.9 to the outbacks 16.6 at 82. And the outback had a manual. The only quick wagons I have seen are the Saab 9-5 wagon and the Audi All- road Quattro. And maybe the Volvo. The WRX is more like a big hatchback. Neither of which is priced where I am that interested. I was offered a pretty good deal on a Volvo but it was still more than a Durango SLT. By the way, the WRX was slower in the Slalom than even the Legacy GT LTD at 61.4 MPH. I wonder how much slower a Forrester is in the corners? Remember what the masses want drives the market. So if I get a wagon or a smaller SUV I will more than likely keep a coupe or Sedan for my daily driver. I happen to live where there are windy and twisty roads, and I don't drive with a car seat full of toddler in the back when testing out those roads. ( Not saying that anyone of you do.) By the way, when my Son was a toddler I had a van, a swing and playpen would not fit in most wagons with my wife and I and a car seat. You had to fold the back seat down to get the swing in and then there was no place for the car seat. My Daily ride in those days was a Karmann Ghia.
  • dudleyrdudleyr Posts: 3,469
    Re the 1.8t sucking gas. My father has a passat wagon with the 1.8t that has a lifetime average of 32 mpg, and he gets 34-40 on the highway depending on speed. That same car with a diesel engine will average over 45 mpg and get over 50 on the highway. Yes it is not available here, but the Jetta is, and it still has a fair amount of room - back seat room may be a little tight for the average (slightly rotund) person, but cargo space is the same as the outback and more than the matrix. The matrix wagon (I know it tries too hard to look different) also gets very good gas mileage and is quite roomy for people - little light on cargo space. So there are wagons out there that do very well with gas, the Subarus tend to use more gas because they have large engines and AWD.

    Also speaking of quick wagons how about the jetta with the 180hp 1.8t - quick and economical (0-60 under 7 and over 140mph). Certainly quicker than any SUV(not counting those goofy limited production things). That is another thing that seems funny to me. Some people will say things like I need the extra power of a V-8 so I gotta have a full size car or SUV/truck. They buy a Suburban/F-150/town car that has a huge V-8, but accelerates about as fast as a 4 cyl Accord with an automatic because of all the weight it has to carry, and of course it handles like the queen mary. Mean while an average sized car with a 4 cyl. engine runs circles around them.

    To me the SUV carries around all that bulk, to be used such a small part of the time (by most people not all - in SD some farmers/ranchers stuff 6-8 people in one, and go 20 miles to the nearest paved road in the winter while towing horses/cattle/hay etc. - now that is using an SUV, and I do not begrudge them one bit). The advantages of a wagon such as better handling, braking, ride, acceleration, economy, manueverability, parkability etc. are used all the time.
  • ateixeiraateixeira Posts: 72,587
    Forester pretty much leads its class in slalom speeds. You have to keep comparisons in context - try comparing the Escape or CR-V instead.

    The Legacy GT is pretty sporting. A buddy of mine took one to a "Friday at the Track" event and hit 106mph on the straightaway. With the instructor behind the wheel, they passed a Ferrari Testarossa (with the owner, of course).

    I have a Miata for the quick errands and stuff like that. But the Forester doesn't penalize you too much, it's the most fun to drive small car-based SUV. In fact that's why I bought it.

    -juice
  • fedlawmanfedlawman Posts: 3,118
    Although the Jetta is a terrific car (and not a bad sporty sedan), there is not a stock Jetta in the country that hits 60 MPH in less than 7 seconds.

    Of course, aftermarket chips are very popular for the 1.8T and make a world of difference for just a few hundred dollars.
  • dudleyrdudleyr Posts: 3,469
    Regarding 7 seconds to 60. May or may not be true. I was kind of interpolating. VW does not publish 0-60 times, but Audi does, and the A4 which weighs about 250 lbs more than the Jetta (with the same engine - actually the Audi is rated with 10 fewer horsepower, but I think they are really the same) goes to 60 in 7.8 seconds. I thought last years model was right around 7.0, but I have to look that up.
  • fedlawmanfedlawman Posts: 3,118
    It's splitting hairs really. There's a lot more to performance than just 0-60.

    A GTI with a 5-speed hits 60 in about 6.8 to 7.2 seconds, depending on the source. The Jetta is likely .5 second slower due to added weight.

    Still plenty quick, and fun to drive too.
  • ateixeiraateixeira Posts: 72,587
    Quicker than any SUV that's even remotely close to its price. Wagons rule! :-)

    -juice
  • boaz47boaz47 Posts: 2,751
    Wagons rule even thought they are outsold by almost every other configuration of vehicle from Coupes to SUVs? I have to admit they are more than interesting in the case of utility. But they are not as sporting as Sedans and Coupes nor as utilitarian as SUVs. So if we agree they handle better than an SUV and carry more than a Sedan we would also have to admit that they handle worse than many sedans and Carry less than many SUVs. I have to admit I have not seen this kind of blind loyalty since I attended a Jeep Jamboree. At least we know who is happy with their choice of Vehicle. Maybe that AWD Vibe is worth a second look?
  • ateixeiraateixeira Posts: 72,587
    Not necessarily. My Forester has a 1020 pound payload, which is more than any other small SUV, and more than about half of the mid-size SUVs I cross-shopped at the time.

    Remember, just because you have the space doesn't mean you can carry more. You still have a payload limit.

    Also, I can put 150 lbs on my roof, while most SUVs are only rated for 75-100 or so.

    Do they necessarily handle worse than sedans? Not really. BMW claims their 3 series wagon is actually 10% stiffer than the sedan.

    Can you name one SUV as quick as a WRX wagon? For even 50% more money?

    -juice
  • porknbeansporknbeans Posts: 464
    Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't Subaru market the Forrester as a SUV not as a wagon? I understand it's built like their wagons but, it's marketed as a SUV.

    To reinforce the wagon as a fun ride, a few years ago Volvo raced their wagons overseas instead of the sedans because they were both more aerodynamic and I think stiffer.

    Generally speaking though, I have to agree with boaz. Wagons and the new crossovers are 'tweener vehicles WRT SUV's and sedans. You can find exceptions to the general rules but his description basically fits.
    Porknbeans

    Grand High Poobah
    The Fraternal Order of Procrastinators
  • ateixeiraateixeira Posts: 72,587
    Sort of, they used to say "sport utility tough, car easy", so they talk about its hybrid nature even in print. Subaru classifies it as a car with the EPA and all other federal agencies.

    I like wagons and think they are the perfect compromise. Perhaps the weight gained will cost you a 5% performance penalty, if that, but an SUV might cost you closer to 20-30% performance penalty.

    -juice
  • hpulley4hpulley4 Posts: 591
    When I test drove Saturn L-series cars, I much preferred the stiffer rear suspension and additional rear weight (thus more neutral front-rear balance) of the wagon. It is slower and gets worse mileage with a poorer drag coefficient, roof racks, extra weight, etc. but for turning and braking I found the wagon superior. Just my impressions from a couple of test drives, no scientific analysis.
  • I think Subaru is now calling it a "Sport Wagon".IMO,the difference for a non-towing customer like me is the driver's position HEIGHT. I have been driving a Pathfinder for 6 years and will be buying a mini ute soon and although I like the Forrester's attributes, I don't want to give up the height, which is why I turned my attention to the CR-V & VUE. If only SUBARU would come out with a true SUV!
  • dudleyrdudleyr Posts: 3,469
    That drivers height thing is a viscious circle - if you buy a tall vehicle to see over others, you are adding one more vehicle that blocks people views. It is all relative. If more people drove wagons, you wouldn't feel the need for a tall vehicle to see.
  • ateixeiraateixeira Posts: 72,587
    Not only that, but a high center of gravity hurts handling.

    You can probably modify the seat track to lift the seat a bit. I've done this on my Miata, and I know of people who did this to their Outback.

    But you can only do so much, since you still have to reach all the controls.

    -juice
  • porknbeansporknbeans Posts: 464
    For me the proportions of the passenger compartment look awkward. I understand that this exaggerated vertical stretching helps interior volume but IMO it looks dorky. I really like the Subaru wagons (especially if they could add some room to the second row) but the Forester doesn't appeal to me.
    Porknbeans

    Grand High Poobah
    The Fraternal Order of Procrastinators
  • ateixeiraateixeira Posts: 72,587
    The redesigned model will be out in May. The style is more modern and looks better IMO (I have a 1998). There is more leg room, but it's still not a lot.

    -juice

    PS I found out yesterday that 37% of all wagons sold are Subarus. That's impressive.
  • porknbeansporknbeans Posts: 464
    The question for Subaru is how are they going to try and maintain this share of the market with more and more options entering it everyday. They have a nice product but the big drawback that they have around here is the lack of dealer network. Until very recently they only had 3 dealers in our state. They now have 11 but most of them are in the Southern part of the state (9). Having to travel the state for pleasure and work, I couldn't recommend a Subaru to any of my friends based purely on this fact.
    Porknbeans

    Grand High Poobah
    The Fraternal Order of Procrastinators
  • Unfortunitly, in the real world there are tons of SUV's,vans &trucks. A lot of drivers are trying to look ahead in traffic or are just looking to see traffic signals. When I drive my wife's Accord , I have to completely adjust my driving habits.
    To each his own
  • ateixeiraateixeira Posts: 72,587
    Subaru won't maintain 37% market share, not with all the new entries. But if the market itself expands, there is still room for sales growth.

    -juice
  • dudleyrdudleyr Posts: 3,469
    I know what you mean about the real world having a lot of trucks. I drove by the local Ford dealer the other day, and noticed that they had 3 cars on the lot and nearly 30 trucks/SUV's. So cars are rare in my neck of the woods. So rare that I have the only Integra in a town of 15,000(not exactly a rare vehicle).

    Of course we don't have traffic here (have not waited more than 1 cycle for a light in many years) so I don't have to worry about looking over it. ; ^ )
  • rblelandrbleland Posts: 312
    After 3 SUVs over the past 11 years (Cherokee, Grand Cher. and 4Runner); I broke the 4Runner(or should I use the shift and say $runner)lease early and got a new Subie 2.5 TS sport wagon. I was one of those people who did not need nor use the capabilities of a truck-based SUV. After "ditching" it at slow speed recently, that clinched it for me. SUVs can go; they just can't stop - ABS or not. IMO, the great majority of those driving SUVs do not go off-road, do not tow anything, and most often, are in 2 or 3 person families with no need for large passenger space. It is a free country and people can do as they wish; but I, for one, am very glad that I switched. Interestingly, the first comment my neighbor made was "you finally got smart, I see". I think that about covers it.
  • storytellerstoryteller Posts: 476
    There are many reasons SUVs are popular here (Minnesota), but a major one is 4WD. For example, we got 10 inches of snow yesterday. No matter where you live in this region, you will meet situations every winter where 4WD or AWD make a critical difference in your ability to get where you want to go. AWD or 4WD can literally be a lifesaver here.

    A lot of potential station wagon buyers have bought SUVs because they wanted four wheels pulling when the going gets tough. Manufacturers were quick to give us a large assortment of 4WD SUVs at the same time they were dropping station wagons from their lineups.

    My point is that a lot of soccer moms have been driving Explorers or Grand Cherokees because they needed 4WD, not because there is anything else about a big SUV that attracted them. When more vans have AWD, they will sell. When more station wagons have AWD, they will sell. If people could have chosen a good AWD wagon ten or twenty years ago, they would have been very popular.
  • I don't know what country you lived in, but 20 years ago, Subaru wagons were everywhere up north. Not to mention the venerable AMC Concord...

    Two examples for you right there.

    I agree that you might be right with some cases, but I still think the vast majority of people pick SUV's for the wrong reasons.
  • dudleyrdudleyr Posts: 3,469
    I live right next door to MN in SD, and we had the same storm you did. I had no problems with 4 snow tires and front wheel drive. In fact I have never gotten stuck with 4 snows and front wheel drive, and have never had to change my driving plans because of not having 4 driven wheels. We may not get quite as much snow in general, but we get plenty of drifting (Interstate was closed for 3 days a couple of years ago even though there was no new snow because it was windy and the snow kept blowing over the road and filling up the space under bridges etc.)

    The roads are closed or no travel advisories issued well before I start having any problems with driving. The worst situation is when there is a white out (happened this weekend) but 4WD does not help with visibility - in fact having your lights higher up just makes it harder to see through the snow.

    We also have these big trucks with blades on the front that we call snow plows. If they have plowed anybody with a decent vehicle can get through. If they haven't nobody can - when there is a bad storm.

    To those that buy AWD or 4WD for driving in extreme snow conditions - do yourself a favor and buy 4 snow tires. The most dangerous part of driving in the snow is not being able to stop! That is where tires will help you, not your vehicles drive system.

    I am amazed at how freely people will spend thousands of dollars for two more driven wheels, yet they wont spend a few hundred for snow tires (that actually make their summer tires last longer).

    I guess the problem is that nobody knows you have the tires, and it doesn't make sense in this country to spend money if nobody can tell you have. ; ^ )
  • ateixeiraateixeira Posts: 72,587
    Congrats on the TS, those are a real value. About half a well equipped 4Runner.

    Subaru has climbed from a low of 100k sales per year to almost double that rate. The new Forester and the Baja arrive this year, too.

    -juice
  • JBaumgartJBaumgart Posts: 890
    Couldn't agree more on the four snow tires - we got 12 inches in that storm, and both of our vehicles (with snow tires and AWD) handled it no problem. It's the other guy you have to worry about - like the big 4WD pickup (presumably WITHOUT snow tires) that I saw completely flipped upside down with tires pointing skyward and its roof almost totally caved in. As I drove by I wondered if the driver/passenger(s) survived that one...
  • jsminjsmin Posts: 11
    What happens when a big ole heavy truck rolls over? I heard that some car magazine rolled a Jeep Liberty during a routine slalom test. This sent the whole Jeep PR department into a huuuge tizzy saying that the testers were over-aggressive and people normally don't drive a SUV in anything but a straight line and at speeds more than 25 miles per hour...Ha! Wasn't even that nit-picky Consumer Reports rag.
  • li_sailorli_sailor Posts: 1,081
    Interesting article on the resurgence of wagons...as LDTs, anyway Automakers Unveil Luxury Wagons
  • ...and I see tons of SUVs. Here it's all about status. They don't tow, they don't off road, they don't cart a SUV full of kids. It's a suburban (no pun intended) requirement to own an SUV in the state where (they think) BIGGER (and obnoxious) IS BETTER!!!
  • Maybe in Dallas. But in Austin, SUV's are prevalent, but Beemers, Volvos, and such are more fashionable to own.
  • ateixeiraateixeira Posts: 72,587
    I recall spending a week in Harlingen, and at least there the distances we had to drive to get to places seemed pretty long. I'm sure people appreciate the room to stretch out, or to pack all there stuff to get it all moved in one trip.

    So at least a few have the need. I'm sure you're right about why most people get them, though.

    -juice
  • treadltlytreadltly Posts: 12
    I own a suburban, not for status I assure you. It's an '87 with a lot of miles, and I use it to haul lumber, sheetrock, kids, bikes, camping equipment, & furniture (moved 5 of us & most of the house contents 3 times in the last 5 years). I am now at the point where I don't want to count on the old suburban for wilderness camping, due to it's age & the stress of hauling a 24' travel trailer. What are my choices? I discovered they haven't made a station wagon that can haul a 4'x8' sheet since 1996; and I can't find any used ones for hundreds of miles from where I live. So I could get another SUV or a truck. I keep going back & forth between the 2, because we have 5 in the family, and want everyone to have head restraint protection. This leaves us to buy an older crew cab truck (horrible mileage and lousy turning radius) for utility needs and then get some other daily car. Or then I come back to the old suburban. Now I can get just one vehicle that can haul the lumber, the trailer, more kids, and the gear; and not pay to insure & maintain 2 vehicles. Sure the gas mileage is still lousy and turning radius only a shade better, but what other choices are there? I'm not sure my growing (very tall) group can wait. Due to the old subs age, it has to be this year. P.S. We're always building something, so we're not a once a year, "have the lumber delivered" issue.
  • dudleyrdudleyr Posts: 3,469
    The obvious choice in your case would be a minivan. Uses much less fuel then the Suburban, handles and rides better, has more room inside, can still tow 3,500-5,000 lbs depending on model. AWD is available in several of them, but not really needed unless you will be climbing boulder strewn mountains.

    Where I live the lumber stores deliver for free, so I don't have to drive a behemoth just so I can bring home building materials once a year.

    Of course there is still that image thing ; ^ )
  • porknbeansporknbeans Posts: 464
    I agree with dudleyr. The SUV's that are out there that do have seating for 5 or more require some gymnastics to get into the third row. The Suburbans and Expeditions of the world are easier to get into but not easier than a mini-van. However, if the job sites that you haul your supplies to are anything like the jobsites I visit in the spring and fall, I would suggest you stick with the SUV.

    There are also other options out now for 3 row seating other than the Suburban. You might want to try the Explorer(V8 and 3-rows, see Edmunds latest comparison on the home page), Trailblazer XL (and its twins in GM/Olds/Isuzu), Durango (get the 4.7 for better mileage), Montero (anemic engine) and MDX (slightly upscale). If you can wait 2 or 3 months you will also have the Honda Pilot (very similar to the Acura MDX).

    You may also be surprised at the crew cabs that are out right now. I'm not sure if they seat 4 or 5 but it is definitely an option for you. Ford and Chevy make a full size crew cab. Ford, Chevy, Dodge and Nissan make a smaller one that can still carry your supplies and tow a load.

    Just some suggestions. I hope it helps.
    Porknbeans

    Grand High Poobah
    The Fraternal Order of Procrastinators
  • ateixeiraateixeira Posts: 72,587
    Just some options I'd suggest you consider:

    Honda Odyssey
    Dodge Grand Caravan
    Honda Pilot (I think they said plywood fits)
    Various Crew Cab compact pickups
    Ford F150 Crew Cab
    Dodge Ram Quad Cab
    Avalanche

    Or...how about a utility trailer? I think Costco is selling one cheap right now. Then you could own just about any car you want, so long as it's equipped to tow.

    -juice
  • treadltly is an exception, not a norm. Most people don't ask that much of their vehicles. Don't make a sweeping assumption that a wagon isn't enough for anyone else but you.
  • li_sailorli_sailor Posts: 1,081
    The obvious choice in your case would be a minivan. Uses much less fuel then the Suburban, handles and rides better, has more room inside, can still tow 3,500-5,000 lbs depending on model.

    While there are lots of things to consider other than ability to tow over 3500lbs, I think the Astro is the only MV that can handle that (class III hitch). It has AWD, too...but I don't think it can handle a flat 4x8 sheet.

    Other than that, the Astro is a pretty good hauler with lots of room. Might be an alternative.
  • boaz47boaz47 Posts: 2,751
    I see on the TV adds and Magazines that the New Forrester will be marketed as an SUV. They seem to be putting it in the segment with Honda and Toyota at the CR-V And Rav-4 level. It is said that the new design will be taller but will have the same engine as the current Forrester. Does that move it from a wagon to a SUV? Maybe SUVs are just tall wagons?
  • ateixeiraateixeira Posts: 72,587
    The Forester has always been hard to categorize. Subaru registers them as cars, but magazines call it an SUV. Ads call it both, actually.

    I saw the new one in person. Compared to my 1998 (the original model), it's not much taller or bigger. It is more space efficient, with more space in the back seat (not a lot, though).

    Their cut-out allowed me to see the aluminum bits used in the bumper frames, chassis, and hood. So I believe it's 90 lbs lighter, as Subaru claims. The same 2.5l will provide power, but next year a 217hp turbo is rumored. That will easily lead the class in power/weight ratio.

    -juice
  • Juice, I prefer to call it a tall wagon.


    The Forrester Turbo has been around in Europe and Japan for a while:


    http://carview.msn.co.uk/mvip/trims/SUBFOR0017.asp


    With only 177hp, it apparently goes 0-60 in 7.7 seconds. Not shabby, that speed would be enough for me. If it had 212hp, it would be something like 6.8-7.0 i bet.

  • ateixeiraateixeira Posts: 72,587
    That's the current model de-tuned for latin markets, where gas is both expensive and poor quality. Japan gets up to 240hp in some Foresters. My friend Steve Suzuki owns one.

    The 2003 gets a version of the WRX engine tuned for more low-end torque. WRXs can hit 60 in as little as 5.4 seconds, but I imagine the heavier, more torquey but less powerful Forester will take just under 7s, as you say.

    -juice
  • I've had several SUVs over the last 10 years (Explorer, Cherokee, Grand Cherokee) and seem to be drawn back to one every time I'm ready to purchase a vehicle. After a yr, I'm tired of its size, gas guzzling and difficulty in maneuvering.

    Strange thing is that here in the South (GA), we all have 2WD SUVs. We're basically paying all that money just for the utility of the space. In comes the wagon...

    This time around (last month) I settled on a hardly used Mercedes E320 wagon with 14k mi. It offers much of the space and utility of the med size SUVs I've owned, and it's much easier to get in and out of (even the minuscule 3rd seat in the rear). Sure, I was hesitant to buy a used vehicle at first, but the beauty of it, as far as I'm concerned, is that for about the price of a new SUV with all the options I'd like (lthr, sunrf, etc), I have a luxurious wagon that in a couple of years will be worth much more than any SUV I would have bought. And, hey, while there are plenty around, at least not everyone on the block has one!

    I'm convinced wagons are making a huge comeback for, among other things, the very reason I bought one.
  • autohaveit, I can only hope others will take wagons into consideration like you did.

    Congrats on the E320! It's got a big booty but it's still a class act of a car.
  • porknbeansporknbeans Posts: 464
    Congrats on the purchase. It is an incredible cruiser that will retain its value for a long time to come. I agree that wagons are on their way back in. They may be called something else and they may not have a traditional "wagon" look but they will still be a close relative. I'm looking to replace my wifes car and I'm trying to hold off until some of the new choices come out.
    Porknbeans

    Grand High Poobah
    The Fraternal Order of Procrastinators
  • ateixeiraateixeira Posts: 72,587
    Baby got back? ;-)

    The E-class wagon is a keeper. That thing will still be doing duty 20 years from now.

    -juice
  • meafordmeaford Posts: 9
    I recently bought a 4 wheel drive Corolla Wagon. This thing is great. With only 80,000 kms I got it for about 1/4 of the price of an Outback or gas guzzling explorer (I get 30-35 mpg) Great in the snow and I live in a Great Lake snow belt region. IMO SUV's are for suckers with too much cash (or image consciousness). Anyone know of where other Toyota Wagon owners can share stories tips etc.. for these vehicles.
Sign In or Register to comment.