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!

Station Wagon vs SUV

145791028

Comments

  • jk27jk27 Posts: 244
    That may be true that families are averaging 1.5 kids. However, then add the family dog (ours is an 80 lb. shepherd/retriever), groceries, camping equipment, a cooler, soccer balls ... you get the picture. My wife and I have 1 child and we have a Buick Rendezvous. Love the extra room. I drove 7 adults (pretty comfortably) to and from a concert the other night. For us, a wagon simply would not be "more than enough".
  • Yeah, and many would argue your lifestyle's excessive. Taking the dog everywhere could be seen as overkill...and when do you take all of those things together?

    I bet 90% of the time it's just two or three people, and no groceries or soccer balls.
  • paisanpaisan Posts: 21,181
    That is what makes america great no one needs to justify their purchases as long as they are legal!

    -mike
  • blh7068blh7068 Posts: 375
    "Yeah, and many would argue your lifestyle's excessive."

    I guess it could be argued your lifestyle is excessive as well since your profile states you are shopping for an Audi allroad quattro. Do you really need to spend that kind of money on a car? See my point?

    Either way thats not a productive argument. Especially considering that was not jk27's point.

    Frequency of utilization is not the issue, All he is saying is the wagon does not meet his requirements WHEN the "... family dog (ours is an 80 lb. shepherd/retriever), groceries, camping equipment, a cooler, soccer balls ..." are all added in.
  • I'm not really shopping for an allroad quattro.

    I take issue with a society that decides to buy a car that suits their worst case maximum need.

    You know, I have a bedroom dresser the size of Alabama but I don't plan on on buying a Suburban. I have a large dog but don't plan on buying a big wagon to carry it in. A line has to be drawn.
  • blh7068blh7068 Posts: 375
    "I take issue with a society that decides to buy a car that suits their worst case maximum need."

    I'm not quite following you here. What defines a worst case maximum need? If space requirements are as such that a wagon is too small Is it a good idea to go ahead and buy it anyway?

    Your examples seem to revolve around 1 time use. IF it is only once...is that the worst case maximum need?

    "A line has to be drawn."

    Where does one draw that line? One time, 3 times, 10% 20%...
  • li_sailorli_sailor Posts: 1,081
    That is what makes america great no one needs to justify their purchases as long as they are legal!

    Ah, but Mike...being required by law and doing it 'cause it's right are two different things!

    You mean, America is great because we do whatever we can get away with legally? Isn't that where Enron went?

    [mike sighs "every time I think I'm out they drrrrraaawwwwww me back in]

    :-)
  • li_sailorli_sailor Posts: 1,081
    I'm not quite following you here. What defines a worst case maximum need? If space requirements are as such that a wagon is too small Is it a good idea to go ahead and buy it anyway?

    I'm with Bart (blh7068) here. I certainly have issues with folks that buy large vehicles that exceed their maximum needs significantly (there are pllenty of those IMO) but not with those buying to meet their maximum vehicular needs. As long as it's not ridiculous.
  • I know this one single girl who had to buy a Lexus RX300 because occasionally she has three friends and her dog to carry.(for 1 or 2% of the time?)

    My neighbor had to buy an Mitsu Montero because she was exposed to flooding in the last town she lived in(Houston) and couldn't buy a normal ride height car cause she didn't feel safe in them anymore.(like you should be driving when it is flooding in any vehicle?)

    I think these and a myriad of other reasons that people use for the rationalizaton of their purchases are pretty silly. If more people checked out this site and the True cost to own and cost per mile figures of these vehicles they might have thought twice about their choices.

    I think it is silly to justify a purchase on a 1 or 2% occurrence when there are other options out there that are much cheaper in the long run. Options like taking another car, renting a truck for a day, paying the furniture $35 to have that sofa delivered to you, etc.

    For many of these people these purchase are 25% pragmatic and 75% the image they portray and related emotions.
  • I feel no need to justify what I drive. I have an excess of vehicles that allow me drive what I want when ever I feel like it. This is important to me. I have a 4X4 for snow that I store in the summer. I have a turbocharged convertable that I store in the winter. I have a car that gets 50 MPG that my wife drives. I have a Lincoln TC and a Taurus station wagon. I do not hull people but usually my 50lb dog rides along.
    When my 3 kids were all home I had a mini-van then I had a big converson van. They were usefull. Full sized conversion vans are great for long trips and can be bought for almost nothing.
  • usa26usa26 Posts: 11
    After briefly reading through some of the previous posts, I decided to psoe my question here, hoping that it's somewhat relevant to the discussion.

    I will be in the market for a small family vehicle somewhat soon. Given my needs, SUVs are not very practical, so I'd prefer to avoid them for all the reasons you already know about. That said, Subaru seems to offer cars that best suit my needs.

    I am having a difficult time deciding between the Forrester XS and the Outback Ltd. Wagon. My primary concern is room/comfort, safety & performance/durability.

    There is a $3000+ difference in price, yet the two vehicles have striking similarities. They both have the same engine, similar head/leg room, same proposed gas mileage, both include front/side airbags, etc. Is the price difference based on leather interior, dual moonroofs and a power driver's seat?

    Subaru indicates similar cargo space, but I find that hard to believe. Is the difference in the Forrester made up in the height of the car? When I load a car, I prefer to keep a clear line of sight out the rear windshield, so that's a negative aspect.

    In short, is the Outback Ltd. Wagon a better vehicle than the Forrester XS? Is it worth the difference in price?

    Any and all help is welcomed and greatly appreciated.
  • paisanpaisan Posts: 21,181
    Well how about this... Let's draw the line for you. How often do you carry more than yourself in your vehicle? And what vehicle do you own?

    My guess from your profile is a '92 Mercedes Benz 190.

    Now lets say most of the time you are alone in your vehicle. That means that YOU are wasting all those other 4 seats! You should be riding a motorcyle or at the least a Metro or Prius, afterall those fit 1 passenger just fine and are far more "concious" than the "huge" 190 MB that you currently drive.

    See it's all a matter of perspective. If you ask the motorcyleist they feel people driving metros are overboard!

    As for the legal arguement. This is America, we are Free to drive what we want. It's one of our great Freedoms in this country. Majority rules here, if the MAJORITY of people felt that SUVs were not what we should be driving they'd make it such that we wouldn't drive them:

    1) Sales would be so low, companies would sieze to offer them for sale (Capitalism at it's best)

    2) People would lobby their elected officials to make the vehicles Illegal.

    Obviously #2 above isn't happening, and #1 will likely occur over time, especially as we see more and more crossover vehicles being marketed which is what the consumers want.

    -mike

    PS: Why do I always get pulled back into the "I hate SUVs arguement...." :)
  • I see your point, but I regularly carpool with my coworker to work. My car fits on a street-side parking spot and doesn't take up much room, and gets 25mpg. I think it's a fairly sensible car to drive.

    There's obviously a line between that and a Chevy Tahoe.
  • paisanpaisan Posts: 21,181
    But that same line can be drawn between your car and 40mpg+ car such as the insight, prius etc. no??

    -mike
  • jk27jk27 Posts: 244
    Magnetophone:

    Based on your demonstrated needs, I deem that you may only drive a motorcycle, effective immediately. You may attach a sidecar when carpooling. Oh, heck, we'll even let you wear a rainsuit when it's stormy. We are currently in the process of evaluating your home/apartment to see if more people could live in the space you are occupying. If so, you may have to move (sorry, but the greater good, efficiency and my own agenda deems it necessary).

    How would you feel if someone directed you in the manner above? It's ludicrous.

    Similarly, no one will "direct" me as to what is necessary or "appropriate" for me and my lifestyle. If I can afford it, the taxes, the gas, the gas taxes, etc., then no one has a right to tell me whether I should be driving this vehicle (or bringing my dog with me wherever I go!). People can (and will) have all the opinions they want, however, the ultimate decision is up to me.

    I feel absolutely no desire (or need) to justify my purchase, but I'm *very* comfortable with the choice I made. I can also highly recommend the Buick Rendezvous as a great vehicle!
  • bkaiser1bkaiser1 Posts: 464
    usa26, I looked at both cars in Jan 2001 for the same reasons -- I didn't want an SUV because I drive around 25K miles a year and didn't want to be filling up a truck that much. I bought the Outback instead of the Forester because it has more passenger room in back and I think the cargo area is more usefully shaped. I know it's subjective, but I also preferred the looks of the Outback to the Forester. If you're planning on offroading much, the forester may suit you better because of it's slightly better approach/departure angles (the Outback hangs up its front bumper a lot when offroad). Some people also think the Forester is more fun to drive, too, and it's slightly lighter than the Outbacks...neither will be mistaken for a sportscar, though.

    After 2 years with my Outback, I've found it to be a perfect size for my needs and it's proven to be a pretty good car. Having said that, I'd go with the Forester now only to get the turbo engine that's available in a few months. The additional power would be VERY welcome!

    Brian
  • I'm in the process of deciding these two vehicles. I think the new Forester with turbo engine is an interesting comparison to Outback. Go test drive it and see which one do you like. I was in the showroom early this week and I think both are nice. The interior of Outback is nicer. But Forester is a bit shorter so I'll have more free room in my garage.
  • I never said that you shouldn't drive the car you choose, only that some people could argue that it's excessive.

    I think you're getting offended for something that was never said.

    Although i will say this - in my opinion the Rendezvous is like putting an elephant in a sequinned dress. Let's play canasta!
  • ateixeiraateixeira Posts: 72,587
    Just a thought, but you could take 2 vehicles on the rare occasions where you actually seat 7 adults. A trailer when you need to haul 4'x8' plywood. A roof rack for excess cargo.

    Forester vs. Legacy/Outback, I have both, sort of, so I'll address each of the concerns you list:

    room/comfort: Legacy is better for passengers, more comfy and quieter. Forester is better for tall and boxy items, but Legacy has a bigger floor area in the cargo hold. But Forester's seats fold more easily, the seat base of the Legacy is one piece so you lose the 60/40 split if you need a flat surface.

    safety: aces for both, which are IIHS "Best Picks". Forester is a little more maneuverable, Legacy a little more substantial.

    performance: I prefer the Forester, which turns quicker due to less weight and a shorter wheelbase. Legacy is a bit heavy. 0-60 in the high 8s range for both (5 speeds).

    durability: should be identical. Forester is built in Japan, Legacy in Indiana. Historically Forester has a very slight edge in reliability, FWIW.

    Some other thoughts? Forester is a better city car, Legacy is better on the highway. With 0-1 kids the Forester is my choice, but 2+ kids means the Legacy is it.

    Good luck.

    -juice
  • li_sailorli_sailor Posts: 1,081
    I feel no need to justify what I drive.

    You don't justify your purchases to yourself? How do you determine what to buy then? What's on sale? Whim?

    Just curious. I've never heard of anyone not going through some justification process when they bought a vehicle.
  • li_sailorli_sailor Posts: 1,081
    Majority rules here, if the MAJORITY of people felt that SUVs were not what we should be driving they'd make it such that we wouldn't drive them...

    Well, majority doesn't actually always rule, just in voting...mostly. OTOH, we got Dubya ;-)

    Second, we don't know how the majority of folks would vote on SUVs...there's never been an election...but 75% of purchases today are non-SUVs...

    People would lobby their elected officials to make the vehicles Illegal.

    There are less drastic steps than "making them illegal"...and there's a lot of chatter about doing something, actually.

    PS: Why do I always get pulled back into the "I hate SUVs arguement...." :)

    You can't help it...it's in your blood ;-)
  • li_sailorli_sailor Posts: 1,081
    I agree with bkaiser1. My SO chose the Outback and I think the cargo space is the primary difference. Not only is the Outback more sa ft but total cargo space is a bit more.

    IMO, the Forster exists just to satisfy those that want the SUV shape over the wagon shape. Not much of a reason if you ask me.
  • ateixeiraateixeira Posts: 72,587
    Ouch, easy there.

    Forester is lighter, nimbler, and more fun. It'll carry big boxes much better. It's easier to get into, with a perfect hip point, and a higher point of view once inside. You get a tad more clearance and much better approach/departure angles. The overhead console is neat, and the single huge moonroof is far nicer than the two small ones on the Outback. More monotone colors are offered. They are available cheaper, too.

    That's just a few of the many, many reasons to choose one.

    Another is that a turbo engine will be available soon that'll outrun any Outback or Legacy, including the H6.

    -juice
  • li_sailorli_sailor Posts: 1,081
    Yeah, that's what I said, no? ;-)

    Ok, I see your point. I consider the Outback pretty nimble for a wagon, but I haven't driven a Forester so I didn't think of it that way.

    That turbo will probably wind up in the Outback eventually too, no?
  • blh7068blh7068 Posts: 375
    "...only that some people could argue that it's excessive."

    That goes back to my original post-

    If the space one needs calls for something larger than a wagon, then how can it be argued as excessive?

    I own a sedan...much of the time it is only myself in the car in the car. WHEN my wife, 5 yr old son, and in laws are with me a 2 door car is too small. So, am I excessive when I am alone in the car?

    Now if the excess you speak of results from large vehicles whose attributes are utilized perhaps one time, or not at all, then yes it could be argued that there are better alternatives.

    jk27's post did not quantify any use, so we really dont know often his needs are met beyond what a wagon would fulfill.
  • jk27jk27 Posts: 244
    "I never said that you shouldn't drive the car you choose, only that some people could argue that it's excessive.

    I think you're getting offended for something that was never said."

    Hmmmm...backing away from what you originally implied, are you? I think we all know what you said and what you meant.

    You obviously don't know me. It takes a lot more than that to get me "offended".

    As to your elephant comment ... whatever. Have you ever driven a Rendezvous? Like I said, people can (and will) have all the opinions they want, however, the ultimate decision is up to me.

    I'm very much enjoying leather seating for 7, AWD, heads-up display, heated seats, Bose stereo w/ 6 CD changer, dual-zone auto climate control, moon roof, foot rests, speed sensitive volume on the stereo, Onstar, memory seating, steering wheel audio controls, dual subwoofers, driver info center, rear seat audio controls and a V6 (which still gets 18/24 mpg). Excessive? Not in the least! Great vehicle which fits my needs!

    blh7068: well said!
  • Half of those features I would never want on a car unless I was filthy rich. Foot rests? My feet rest just fine on the floorboard. Speed sensitive volume? What the F is that? The only kind of volume I like is up or down. The Ford Focus comes with the same thing standard. Driver info center? Read: Old fogeys can't read an oil meter. A noisy V6 pushrod which propels the car to 60mph in 11seconds. And, by the way, I've driven an Aztek, which is very similar so I do know how they drive. Like a minivan! Because they're based on a really bad one, the Venture/Montana.

    I don't know why the Rendezvous is being brought up - it's not really an SUV or a wagon. It's more like a minivan.

    Needless to say, I do feel that the Rendezvous is an excessive vehicle for most families, and this is just my opinion. This is the Wagon v. SUV board, and I'm vehemently on the wagon side of things.
  • paisanpaisan Posts: 21,181
    Second, we don't know how the majority of folks would vote on SUVs...there's never been an election...but 75% of purchases today are non-SUVs...

    Then that 25% of SUVs being bought shouldn't matter that much to people, afterall it's such a vast minority compared to the 75% non-suvs!

    -mike
  • usa26usa26 Posts: 11
    Thanks for the input everyone. Since I posed my question in Forrester discussion, you could probably tell that I was/am leaning toward it over the Outback. I am concerned with something A.J. said. The car I choose must be able to provide enough room for two small children. That said, is the Forrester still a good fit? The Outback is no Suburban, but it is slightly bigger and longer (rather than higher) than the Forrester.

    This is probably my only concern. The Forrester seems like a perfect fit otherwise, plus it's cheaper. I haven't decided on whether to go after an 03 or wait for the 04 yet. Although the turbo charged engine is enticing, cost is a concern, and a break on an 03 may trump all else.

    When are the 04 models going to hit the showroom?

    Thanks again for all your help.
  • We have long owned car based wagons (Passat, Taurus, V70) and recently needed to purchase a new car. Immediately ruled out were any truck based SUVs and minivans. Once we looked at reliability which was our most important criteria there were very limited choices.

    We ended up with a FWD Highlander which after driving it for a week is nothing more than a tall Camry wagon. And that is how we will use it. No offroading. No deep snow driving. Just a wagon.
  • ateixeiraateixeira Posts: 72,587
    Forester has a much shorter wheelbase, so it turns in quicker and feels more nimble. It's also a lot lighter, a few hundred pounds. I forgot to mention they all have aluminum hoods, now, too.

    Given the choice, I prefer to drive our Forester over our Legacy, but some times we need the extra room the Legacy offers.

    Outback offers an H6, I think a turbo will go in a Legacy GT, maybe for MY2004. Some spy pix in Alaska show Subaru was cold-weather testing a Legacy with a hood scoop there.

    Hmm, 2 kids? Take your child seats/boosters with you, along with your kids, see how they fit. They probably will, but your kids might kick the back of your seat if they're not usually well behaved.

    We drove a FWD V6 Highlander too, though it was a bit pricey, we thought. Nice, though.

    -juice
  • li_sailorli_sailor Posts: 1,081
    Immediately ruled out were any truck based SUVs and minivans.

    The only truck-based MV is the Astro, AFAIK.

    The HL sounds like a good choice...basically a MV, except for the slight extra clearance and SUV body shape (kinda).
  • We have long owned car based wagons (Passat, Taurus, V70) and recently needed to purchase a new car. Immediately ruled out were any truck based SUVs and minivans. Once we looked at reliability which was our most important criteria there were very limited choices.

    We ended up with a FWD Highlander which after driving it for a week is nothing more than a tall Camry wagon. And that is how we will use it. No offroading. No deep snow driving. Just a wagon.
  • The 4-cylinder Highlander 2WD is a socially acceptable way to drive an SUV. You won't be sacrificing the slightest bit in the way of king-of-the-road seating, seating for five adults, and storage for all the junk you care to carry, but neither will you be giving more ammunition than necessary to our good friends in the Middle East... or to the increasingly vocal anti-SUV activists.
    20MPG on the 2WD
  • ateixeiraateixeira Posts: 72,587
    I didn't drive one, the dealer said there was not much demand for them (a quick internet search confirmed almost all were V6 models). So if you're happy with it, nice find.

    -juice
  • I am looking to replace my 1996 Taurus GL wagon with a new Passat/V70/Forester or maybe a used Audi A6 avant (sp?)

    Since you’ve owned several of these vehicles I was wondering if you wouldn’t mind taking some time to give me a mini-comparison. How would the Taurus compare to the V70 or Passat in terms of engine performance/ride comfort/noise levels/passenger comfort etc.

    Any input would be much appreciated. Thanks in advance.

    If anybody else has input, feel fee to join in
  • dulesdules Posts: 37
    I am in No. NJ and considering both the Outback wagon (Base, 5 speed) and the Forester XS (5 speed). Have been conducting my search primarily online and have not rec'd any response from dealers on a Forester price (!); however on the Outback wagon I'm hearing around $21,600 - below Edmond's estimate but still significantly over invoice.

    On these boards I've read that people are buying these cars under invoice. True? This is the first time I've tried "no-haggle" pricing online and am starting to think that the old fashioned, face to face way is better.

    If anyone chose one of these cars over the other, I'd love to hear why. Also any general idea of pricing in the NY-NJ area would be great.

    Thanks!
  • steverstever Posts: 52,457
    Check in the Subaru Crew - Dealers & Pricing discussion too.

    Steve, Host
  • nippononlynippononly SF Bay AreaPosts: 12,726
    now with the "SUV" moniker is that it is severely outdated. It has been around since 1990, when all SUVs were truck-based midsize and large vehicles with enclosed beds with seats. Since then, the SUV market has expanded enormously, and for the purposes of an argument like this, a single term SUV no longer suffices for appropriate comparisons.

    By the 1990 definition (which is what people still think of when you mention an SUV), many of the vehicles mentioned here, like Forester, Highlander, Pilot, RX300, RAV4, CRV etc are cars...they have car unibodies, car powertrains and smog controls, and weigh significantly less than the few truck-based utes that remain. So the driving dynamics cannot be considered equivalent between the two groups, and neither can their fuel economy or emissions.

    If you separate out the ones I have mentioned, and a few others like Ford Escape, Chevy Tracker, etc, what really differentiates them from the few wagons currently available? Not price. Not gas mileage. Not emissions.

    Carmakers have evolved wagons a little to have a more aggressive look, taller roofline, and a slightly higher driving position. Then, because marketing people told them they couldn't call them "wagons" or they would lose massive sales, they hitched on the bandwagon of the most popular current term, "SUV", in order to keep those sales hot.

    If vehicles like Highlander (camry wagon) do not make this clear, I don't know what could.

    2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)

  • li_sailorli_sailor Posts: 1,081
    (had to edit [actually, delete] the last post to correct an error)

    For the most part, I agree with your point...the SUV field, with about 75 models, is a varied one. There is tremendous variation in size/weight and in frame construction. And there is certainly a trend in the rising % of car-based vs truck based SUVs. However, the statement "the few truck-based utes that remain" is quite misleading.

    Using autosite data and January 2003 sales, truck based SUVs are still 58% of SUV sales. And in terms of models, it's quite overwhelming...out of 73 SUV models, 44 are truck based and 29 are car based.

    In terms of size, all large SUV models (20) are truck based, 17 out of 33 mid SUVs are truck based and 7 out of 20 small SUVs are truck based.
  • jk27jk27 Posts: 244
    Mag said, "Half of those features I would never want on a car unless I was filthy rich."

    That's OK ... I purchased the Buick Rendezvous with *my* needs in mind, not yours ;)

    You obviously have not driven as Rendezvous as the engine is not "noisy" in the least. Here's what some publications said about the Rendezvous:

    Car & Driver - "Its ride is quiet and comfortable."

    Road & Track - "The Rendezvous boasts a sophisticated new independent suspension. The suspension is almost firm with great damping."

    Edmunds.com - "Highway cruising yields a comfortable ride quality without the typical "float" associated with most Buick sedans."

    As for whether a Rendezvous is an SUV ... well, what defines a SUV? As we've seen in previous discussions, this is, indeed, an elusive term. Pretty much in the eye of the beholder, it seems. Elevated seating position, greater ground clearance, significant storage capacity and AWD would be some of the attributes (all of which the RDV has). In my book, the RDV is an SUV. The lines between SUV and crossover vehicle are indistinct, at best.

    Oh, and the RDV is definitely an affordable option, with lots of luxury appointments. I purchased my AWD CXL RDV for about $30k. The lowest priced V6 AWD Subaru Outback, per Edmunds True Market Value, is $25,290 (2003 Subaru Outback H6-3.0 AWD 4dr Wagon (3.0L 6cyl 4A)).

    Oh yeah, my RDV gets 18/24 mpg. Not bad at all! The Subaru H6 is 20/26.
    Happy Driving!
  • ateixeiraateixeira Posts: 72,587
    Wait for the Forester turbo (2.5XT) if you like those. With 235 lb-ft and 0-100 in 6.1 seconds, it'll blow the others away, literally.

    We have a Legacy and a Forester. The Forester is more fun, more manueverable, spunky. It's a better city car and better at carrying tall/boxy cargo. The ground clearance was good enough that I could drive around on Monday after the 28" snow storm the day before, even on unplowed roads. This is a better city car for folks with 0-1 kids and a maybe a dog or two.

    The Legacy has a longer wheelbase and is more comfortable hauling passengers primarily. The cargo floor area is bigger so you don't have to stack things. The L/SE is a bargain for what you get (AWD, ABS, 2 moonroofs, 16" alloys for under $20k). It's better if you have 2-3 or more kids and drive mostly on the highway.

    A polite correction - H6, not V6, on that Subie.

    If you're shopping, start at fitzmall.com for a good idea of a no-haggle reasonable price.

    -juice
  • steverstever Posts: 52,457
    To me, the Legacy (and Outback) looks like it's more fun to drive than the Forester. Guess that's why they invented test drives.

    Steve, Host
  • li_sailorli_sailor Posts: 1,081
    Steve...could you elaborate on what visual attribute gives you that impression? I'm not doubting you, I'm really curious about what makes you say that. As I've said earlier, I drive an Outback regularly (and yes, it's pretty fun for a wagon) but never drove a Forester.

    Of course, better not to have too much fun...I would think the Forester is a bit more likely to tip, no? I see it has a 3-star rollover rating...still not bad, if that means much.
  • ateixeiraateixeira Posts: 72,587
    Mainly, it's because the Forester is a couple hundred pounds lighter. It does lean more, but it's still more fun to drive, IMO.

    Also, the shorter wheelbase means a quicker turn-in.

    Acceleration and handling limits are similar, but in transition the lighter Forester has the edge.

    -juice
  • That's fine and dandy, I still think the RDV is crap. ;)
  • jk27jk27 Posts: 244
    Magnetophone said, "That's fine and dandy, I still think the RDV is crap."

    Naptime for Magnetophone ;) Funny how you can have such a strong opinion when you've never even driven one. I'd venture to guess you've never even been inside a Rendezvous. Great, affordable, luxurious, safe vehicle.

    If anybody needs any further input or feedback, please feel free to ask.
  • li_sailorli_sailor Posts: 1,081
    It must be crap...it's...practically [gasp!]...an Aztek !!!!

    :-)

    Besides, aren't we boycotting all French stuff? ;-)

    Actually, it's selling quite well...#19 out of 73 SUVs in sales. Outselling RAV4, RX300, Sequoia, Tribute, Forester, Pathfinder...
  • steverstever Posts: 52,457
    Heh, after all my talk in IDLSWDY about not caring what the car looks like (the pink Aztek thread <g>), the Outback just looks sportier and more appealing to me. More so than the Forester (or the Legacy wagon).

    The height of the Forester doesn't appeal to me as much, and although I clunk my head more on my wide racks that stick out, it's easier to load canoes on the shorter rigs. Maybe it just looks too SUVish, LOL.

    Steve, Host
  • jk27jk27 Posts: 244
    I saw a bumper sticker, "First Iraq, then France" ... scary (but funny)!

    By the way, can you tell me where one would find a list of the best-selling SUV's. Thanks much!
Sign In or Register to comment.