Did you recently take on (or consider) a loan of 84 months or longer on a car purchase?
A reporter would like to speak with you about your experience; please reach out to PR@Edmunds.com by 7/22 for details.
A reporter would like to speak with you about your experience; please reach out to PR@Edmunds.com by 7/22 for details.
Options
Comments
No new specs on the site yet though.
Build a Flex
just pointing out the obvious...
I suspect if the FS had the lambda styling and the lambda's had the FS styling we'd be having a very different conversation.
I'm here all week...
$45,460 loaded but that's a mistake, they let me put a moonroof and a vista roof, I'm sure you can't get both.
So figure $27-44k or so. That's a nice, wide spread.
It actually starts lower than I thought. What's the starting price for a Taurus X?
$26,615 FWD
$28,465 AWD
I expected the Flex to start at $30 grand. Way to go, Ford.
I was talking about a minivan that got worse passenger space, worse cargo space, worse full economy, worse turning radius, etc. There was not a single mechanical aspect where it gained on the competition.
Now, for numbers (glad you are taking interest on them,) let's get precise. Not that I care much about which one wins, since I'll be happy with my choice even if some other competitor is superior in one or more aspects.
These are all Ford numbers, which I had to pull from the Canadian website since the US site doesn't list all numbers:
Weight: 3960 vs. 4720 = 19% more
Passenger volume: 146 vs. 154 = 5% more
Total Cargo volume: 85.2 vs 117 = 37% more
Cargo volume behind 3rd row: 17.4 vs 19.7 = 13% more
Passenger seating: 7 vs. 8 = 14% more
Turning radius: 20 ft. vs 20 ft (identical)
Not too mention superior ground clearance and towing capacity, which may be secondary to buyers, but are improvements nevertheless.
In fact, for 2008, Ford erased the one feature I liked better, the CVT and its better fuel economy.
Add easier access to the 3rd row, a much roomier 3rd row, better handling, a smoother ride, and I am glad you will be here all week.
If you are going to keep on harping on weight and size, and you like debate as much as you say, you are going to have to associate an objective disadvantage to it versus other competitors. "It is not as great as it could have been" applies to all vehicles in this thread, some more so than others.
I suspect if the FS had the lambda styling and the lambda's had the FS styling we'd be having a very different conversation.
That made no sense whatsoever, and I am not willing to provide fodder for another styling discussion in this thread.
8 overall interior cuft with an additional 800lbs I'd hardly call efficient.
Not if it comes at the cost of quality though. Things like cheaper/thinner plastics, fewer sound absorbing materials, etc. can make a big difference in those ratios.
Before I get jumped on, those are just examples of what can be done to achieve the space to weight goal and I am in no way saying GM did this. I have not gone over their interiors with a fine toothed comb so I really honestly don't know how they did it.
Taurus passenger volume: 108
Accord passenger volume: 102.7
Difference: 5% (the same as the passenger volume advantage of the lambdas over the TX, which is the *smallest* advantage in interior dimensions).
Now, last time I checked the Taurus was widely accepted as being in a bigger category than the Accord.
Hey, everybody got to talk about sedans, my turn :P
Not saying it one way or another, but if you bring up thinner plastics and fewer sound absorbing materials (and I'll add a less rigid structure) as ways of reducing weight, that argument would favor the heavier vehicles. It is not like any of the competitors are saving weight with carbon fiber, other composite materials, aluminum sheet metal, magnesium engines, etc.
Combined with the better accident avoidance maneuver numbers for the lambdas, which suffer from a longer wheelbase, higher ground clearance and taller stance (all measures that worsen the agility of the vehicle), you do start to wonder about the rigidity of the TX chassis.
waiting for consumer reports to add a emotion circle to their ratings and a style circle to help buyers evaluate these quantifiable traits.
kidding, just kidding, can't help you on that one...
I'd much rather depend on R&T and C&D testing to verify any advantage. That's all they do, CR evaluates washing machines, tv's, and anything else they feel like having an opinion about. Jack of all trades doesn't hold water for me in this arena. I tried looking around and couldn't find any numbers from either of those sources, not sure if anyone else has had any luck.
Are you losing it? Who said anything about CR?
I completely destroyed the argument that there were no significant interior dimension gains with the lambdas (ranging from 5% to 37%) using Ford's own numbers and you go into the weeds using Accord styling and CR testing TVs?
MT tested the Acadia, CX9 and the Veracruz (I think). They pronounced the CX9 the winner.
Of course each consumer can make their own judgement, that's the beauty of having so many choices.
I think my wife and I would be fighting to see how got to sit in the back with the kids in that van.
C&D has the lane change test, which will be a good approximation if they ever go for a comparo.
Most claim VVT of some sort.
I find it surprising that GM got it to peak at 3200 rpm, which is the responsible for their mileage despite the added weight.
Is there any lambda owner feeling a "hole" in the power band between 3200rpm and 6200rpm or a lack of punch after 5000rpm (on a passing maneuver at 65 mph, for instance) ?
A V8 was available some years, but most came with the 232 inch (3.8L, I think) six. I could spin the wheels on takeoff with the automatic transmission.
Yes, but I still think the FS (not necessarily the T-Rex) is capable of MPG that the Lamdas will not touch - regardless of speed.
and if it wasn't a CR test that was being referenced then my bad as that's what I thought I read was the source for that...
as for completely destroyed the argument you give yourself too much credit as you have spun yourself into believing the numbers you post.
yes, the lambda has a 8cuft interior advantage. NOT ONCE have I ever debated that.
I'd hardly call that significant.
As for the 37% more cargo space behind the front row, you have 2 vehicles that are within 5% of each others total interior volume hence that does not seem physically possible.
over-all interior - cargo = cu. ft. of 1st row area
volume
lambda 154 - 116 = 38 cu ft in 1st row
FS/TreX 146 - 86 = 60 cu ft in 1st row
so using your manufacturer provided numbers the FS has a 30%+/- advantage in 1st row volume in a fully loaded FS despite being at a 5% disadvantage in overall volume despite when you look at the dimensions they are all very close short of the width. Someone's marketing dept. is full of stuff with their numbers, not sure who, one or both could be...
My whole point stands, the manufacturers cook the numbers to help themselves just like the the government did to go look for WMD's(but I digress).
Unlike you and a large portion of the buying public, I can look at the numbers and space that is being debated and say something DOES NOT MAKE SENSE regardless of what the MANUFACTURERS are telling me to serve their own interests. I deal with space for a living, these numbers as you throw them around don't make sense. The numbers are not apples to apples, lambda is indeed larger yes, but they do not enjoy the advantages to the extent you keep professing and gm is happy to keep out there in their marketing counting on consumers like you.
No arguing gm may do this piece of the cuv a bit better than ford or vice versa, but a little better folding mechanism does not make up all the difference you keep talking about.
as for the accord reference that was responding to your other post so why don't you calm down and see the joke as it was intended.
I had to climb up higher to get into the 2nd row of the Outlook...I didn't like that much. This also meant that accessing the 3rd row of the Outlook was MORE difficult, not less, than the FS. The FS 2nd row flips and folds forward and gives you as much space as the Outlook to climb into the 3rd row, but with the FS you don't have to climb up so high. And someone said that the higher ground clearance is an advantage??? By that logic go buy yourself a regular SUV.
Passenger CuFt doesn't mean much if it's all above your head and around the shoulders...that's the easy way for a manufacture to make the passenger space appear to be larger. When I sat in the 2nd row of the Outlook, my knees were up higher then in the 2nd row of my FS. And that's with the seat cushion on the FS being even a little more horizontal, so there was no angled seat cushion doing this.
{A perfect example of this is the 2008 Caravan (http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do/MediaNav/articleId=121939/firstNav=Gallery- - /photoId=43101#). Look at the 2nd and especially the 3rd row seats. No wonder they can advertise huge legroom numbers with their seats angled up so high. The FS 3rd row doesn't angle up nearly so much, so you don't feel like you're sitting in a bucket!}
As far as headroom, when I sat in either the FS or Outlook in the 2nd row in it's most upright position, the distance from the top of my head to the ceiling was about the same for both.
The Outlook is bigger on the outside, and it's bigger on the inside, especially because of the width. The cargo area behind the 3rd row is wider and a little longer, but I know I can put taller items behind the 3rd row of the FS than the Outlook, because the FS well area behind the 3rd row is open. With all the seats folded, the Outlook has more space, again mostly because of the width, but also because of the way the FS flip and fold 3rd row works.
So if you need max cargo space and you need to seat 8, get the Outlook (actually I'd get a Sienna if I had that requirement). But 6 people sitting in the FS or in the Outlook will feel just as comfortable, but it will be easier for the people to get into the FS in all rows.
you folks really need to stop spinning your numbers as you are talking yourselves right out of anything that makes a modicum of sense.
146cuft/3960 = 27.1 lbs/cuft
156cuft/4760 = 30.5 lbs/cuft
5% more space requires 12%+ more lb/cu.ft. to achieve.
keep trying...
plus the beefier suspension - hardly an objective statement
that might help you avoid an accident - give me a better source than CR and we can talk further about that
in exchange for 800 lbs sounds pretty reasonable to me. - need to redefine the term reasonable for yourself.
"Of course each consumer can make their own judgement, that's the beauty of having so many choices."
And the failing of believing everything you read...
The TX also gives away some cargo space when folding the 3rd row because the well in the trunk disappears.
Passenger space *does not* include the space behind 3rd row and does not discount the volume of the seats. These spaces are overlapping and measured in different ways, so that subtracting one from another doesn't make sense.
You may deal with space for a living, but it is not measuring cars.
My whole point stands, the manufacturers cook the numbers to help themselves just like the the government did to go look for WMD's
Anyone can take a measuring tape and go check the first
I can look at the numbers and space that is being debated and say something DOES NOT MAKE SENSE regardless of what the MANUFACTURERS are telling me to serve their own interests.
Actually you are using the numbers I gave you (pray I wasn't wrong about them or you will never hear the end of it :-) but you eagerly took the one 800lbs (actually 760, did you say you work with space for a living?) that you think makes your point and went with it throwing FUD at all others. Either take one or none.
You sidestepped my challenge to associate any objective advantage of the Taurus X over the Outlook due to the increased mass. Maybe speed, but we have no test numbers to confirm one way or another.
hmmmm, he may have a point there and be right, after I think about it maybe there really is some inconsistency in the numbers and maybe they really don't make sense. He never said the lambda wasn't bigger he just said it wasn't to the extent that the number's I'm using are leading me to believe.
YOU CANNOT tell me that there is not validity to my point.
I used the overall volume number YOU provided and I used the cargo number YOU provided. Can you just not stand the idea that I may just have proved your 37% figure wrong.
"Cargo space is the space behind 1st row *above* the folded seats. You cannot have the cargo and the folded seats occupying the same space, simple physics."
thanks for the update, did I indicate anywhere otherwise or use numbers that would lead you to think something else was used for that, no.
"The TX also gives away some cargo space when folding the 3rd row because the well in the trunk disappears."
how does this factor into the behind 1st row cargo numbers as it is under the folded seat making it unavailable to the calculations 86 cu.ft. number. according to you the well should not matter
to say things another way;
lambda 154 - 116 = 38cuft
FS 146 - 86 = 60cuft
assume front row volumes are similar due to close dimensions with the lambda being 5% larger(and using round number to illustrate the point not represent the last micron of space);
lambda 1st row volume = 30cuft
FS 1st row volume @ 95% of 30 = 28.5cuft
what you are saying is the following;
1st row (hypothetical to illustrate point)volume
lambda - 30cuft
FS - 28.5cuft
cargo volume behind 1st row above the plane of the folded seats
lambda - 116cuft
FS - 86cuft
volume left below 1st row and below the plane of the folded seats(hypothetical to illustrate point)
lambda - 8 cuft
FS - 31.5 cuft
that means there is a 23.5cuft(hypothetical to illustrate point) difference for your numbers to be accurrate under the plane of the seats folded. even if you take into account adding 1, 2 or 3 cuft of an advantage more to the lambda in 1st row volume that still leaves a huge discrepancy for you to get to your figures.
I just don't think 37% is accurate and nor should you.
"Passenger space *does not* include the space behind 3rd row and does not discount the volume of the seats. These spaces are overlapping and measured in different ways, so that subtracting one from another doesn't make sense."
why are we talking passenger space suddenly, what's overlapping and measured differently?(nastacio searches wikipedia furiously at this point as I suspect he only knows more about the interior measuring standards because he did the search)
at the end of the day I think ford needs to hire the people who calc'd the interior of the lambda's.
"You sidestepped my challenge to associate any objective advantage of the Taurus X over the Outlook due to the increased mass."
not really, I just asked for something better than CR for numbers for the testing cited and never said you may in the end be right in regards to that. Oops, just remembered a BIG one, 800lbs less stuff gm puts in it that I have to pay for, objective enough for you.
"Maybe speed, but we have no test numbers to confirm one way or another."
The weight/hp numbers are usually a good indicator and with the benefit the T-reX has on paper while not tested seems to be in ford's favor unless they really piss that one up.
We get it, you like your FS, not a bad choice and it works for you. Sheesh, no one here is trying to sell you a different car.
I fully admit that between the Ford and the Lambda's I pick the Lambdas. I think they look better. That is what will work for me - though I am always curious to see what is coming from others. Ford is not going to sit still while GM adds a third shift I can tell you that much for sure.
I just read the new Consumer Reports with the Outlook. Score one for GM. Great job, considering the testing outcome is always a little slanted away from American brands. I wonder what would have happened had the TX and new Highlander been in the test? I bet, if reliability is average, or above, Outlook will take number one on their midsize/ fullsize SUV list.
Also read what edmunds thinks of the new Dodge Caravan. Looks like we have a winner. They even say upclose it looks good. Can't wait til the comparison test.I'm guessing at least one of the the top two Japenese vans will be knocked down. We'll see.
Who has the smart engineering now?
lambda 154 - 116 = 38 cu ft in 1st row
FS/TreX 146 - 86 = 60 cu ft in 1st row
None of that makes sense. YOu probsbly have to look at other stuff, like the length from bumper to A pillar.
What's all this wih cooking numbers? If anyone is doing it, it's Ford. There is no way that storage well behing row 3 adds 5ft of cargo space. Maybe that's why they didn't add that number into the TX cargo equation.
Maybe you should go rent one to prove to yourself that GM did nothing to enhance numbers that wasn't engineering.YOu won't admit to us that there is a huge difference, but it doesn't matter as long as you understand.
And Why all this griping about CR? Although I'm not a fan, I know that they have as much credibility as any other automag (and I think R&T is total balogna). It's just they shouldn't get the credibility they do because their testing methods aren't the most advanced. But I think all mags are full of some crap. MT totally gave thetitle to the Veracruz over the RX, and the G over the 3 series so eople would pick it up off the shelves. And don't get me started on C&D.
I take it back. I think some auto makers do cook numbers. If I remember correctly, Subaru Tribeca has 34 in of legroom? Yeah right.
"What's all this wih cooking numbers? If anyone is doing it, it's Ford."
And you base that on what objective fact, why would they cook the numbers to their detriment in the marketplace?
"There is no way that storage well behing row 3 adds 5ft of cargo space. Maybe that's why they didn't add that number into the TX cargo equation."
there is usable cargo space under the 3rd row that they are not counting at this point in the T-reX that was counted in the FS specs.
how many times do I have to say I'm not disputing the lambda is larger, my only point is that with 5% more volume it's not 37% larger in the cargo area behind the 1st row, it physically just can't be that much bigger all things considered. It just does not make any sense...why is this so hard to fathom...
I don't see why it is so hard to accept the lambdas cargo volume number. On the inside, it only takes 5 (width) x 7.25 (lenght) * 3.2 (height) to reach 116 cu.ft. Come to think of it, you are right in that 85ft doesn't seem right for the FS and maybe Ford should restate those numbers. With 7 inches less in shoulder room on 3rd row and 3 inches less in 2nd row, I think a better number would be a 10% deficit.
It would be pointless to remind anybody that the whole discussion around this one metric was to show that you do get more in the lambdas after 2 years of wait, whereas you tried to liken it to the Chrysler minivan being smaller than its competitors after a similar wait. Either 10 or 37, you get more.
I know you are not going to accept these numbers or arguments anyway, which leaves us only one rational way to settle this discussion.
Weld shut the doors of your FS, drill a hole on the roof and start pouring one gallon of water at a time into it. :shades: That will give us *overall* interior volume for the FS and a better basis to do more precise calculations.
I would promise to do the same to an Enclave if our local dealers could at least keep one on display.
Oops, just remembered a BIG one, 800lbs less stuff gm puts in it that I have to pay for, objective enough for you.
That is not why people are willing to pay more for the lambdas over the TX, but I'll just leave it at that.
New model is $3k more expensive than last year (in Canada anyway) and all that seems due to lots of fancy, complex techno features, most of which I don't want. The hybrid option remains the only thing which makes makes it attractive, but it remains to be seen how much of a $$ hit it will be on the new model. Anyone else looked at them?
"I said you cannot subtract cargo volume from passenger volume because passenger volume does not include the area behind 3rd row, which cargo volume does. In other words, one volume does not completely include the other. Your math would be correct if we had *overall* interior volume."
I can start to see your point with that then but if the passenger figures are the 154 & 146 cuft numbers you posted, even if you add the behind 3rd row numbers (15cuft/FS & 19cuft/Lambda) to the numbers that's still only a 4cuft difference which would only still account for a small portion of the discrepancy I identified. The 10%+ figure is probably getting closer to the reality of it all
you asked for objective...
"That is not why people are willing to pay more for the lambdas over the TX, but I'll just leave it at that."
like I said, it's because they believe everything they read...
With all seats down, I estimate the difference there at around 10 cu.ft because the TX "trunk" is about 8 inches shallower x 5ft wide x 3ft tall.
Whether the dimensional gains should be proportional to gain in weight, I don't think they must go hand in hand to prove good engineering. The lambdas probably owe much of the added weight to a taller chassis and the additional SUV-like sheet metal. Had they gone for the car-like looks of the FS, maybe they would be lighter, but let's be frank, it was a design that was starting to sit on the lots and GM desperately needed to move iron to get out of the hole.
Or maybe GM should go for brake pads that wear out in 10 months, I bet those are lighter too.
As far as lack of punch goes, I have never had that problem. Plenty of get-up-and-go. Then again, I do not engage in stoplight drag-racing in my family-hauling land yacht.
I'll take premature pad wear every day of the week...
07008: Air Inlet Panel to Windshield Gap (TSB)
Year Division Model From Through
2007 GMC Acadia 7J100107 7J106511
2007 Saturn Outlook 7J100001 7J106508
07043: Product Safety Recall - Airbag Module May fail to deploy (Recall)
Year Division Model From Through
2007 GMC Acadia 7J100107 7J119216
2007 Saturn Outlook 7J100001 7J119217
07058: Transmission Lag Recalibration (TSB)
Year Division Model From Through
2007 GMC Acadia 7J100107 7J128619
2007 Saturn Outlook 7J100001 7J128620
07073: Seat Wiring Harness / Lift Gate Button / Steering Boot (TSB)
Year Division Model From Through
2007 GMC Acadia 7J100107 7J124042
2007 Saturn Outlook 7J100001 7J124041
07074: Console Housing Switch check (TSB)
Year Division Model From Through
2007 GMC Acadia 7J100107 7J122181
2007 Saturn Outlook 7J100001 7J112182
07075: Passenger Side Power Window Regulator (TSB)
Year Division Model From Through
2007 GMC Acadia 7J100339 7J117500
2007 Saturn Outlook 7J100102 7J117494
then "what is" the measure of good design, how shiny it is, how many cup holders it has, how much bigger one is, what color pallatte are we going to have? To divorce the two when it come to automotive design puts one's head firmly in the sand. They are not exclusive, one affects the other as that 800lbs of stuff has the potential to inflict warranty/after warranty costs, is not free and costs the consumer when it comes time to pay up, has some toll on mpg and handling. You can't tell me with better design/engineering to eliminate even half of that 800lbs you would not have a vehicle that cost less to produce, get better mpg, handle "even" better than it already does, and go faster in a straight line, at no cost to what it is. Why is that such a hard point to concede?
As I have posed before how come the minivan segment can produce vehicles that have more room, are just as "solid", have a footprint within a few percentage points and weigh considerably LESS than the lambda's, apparantly handle better, go faster and cost less, that's good design, plain and simple.
"The lambdas probably owe much of the added weight to a taller chassis"
At 69.9" vs 68.2" difference the lambda sits 1.7"taller, it also has a 3" ground clearance advantage sound doing a bit of surmising can lead one to come to the conclusion that their overall envelope height wise is largely the same within an inch or two. As we've said the width is larger and accounts for a portion of the weight but as stated 5% more width at a 19% penalty in weight cannot be considered "good design".
"and the additional SUV-like sheet metal. Had they gone for the car-like looks of the FS, maybe they would be lighter,"
this comment is laughable, define "suv-like sheetmetal" for me and how that rationalizes a 19% weight increase from one of it's competitiors or the minivan's for that matter.
Maybe you should consider it's not the lambda. Look at any other vehicle that size. The Tahoe has 108 cuft of cargo, and I don't even have to give you a Sienna number. The lambda fits nicely between there. The CX9 has less (101cuft) but that's because of the swoopy shape. It's the FS. What's wrong? How can such a long vehicle have so little cargo space? Let me answer that. It's a station wagon! Don't think this is the answer? Look at the Pacifica- another station wagon. Cargo space is terrible. It's as simple as that.
Oh, and what minivan handles bettert than a lambda, or any CUV in it's class?
Let's play nice.
tidester, host
SUVs and Smart Shopper
Maybe the freestyle comments are posted in the wrong board?
KIDDING! :shades:
I'll take premature pad wear every day of the week...
Once again, only one rational way of settling the argument.
By now your FS has the doors weld shut and a whopping 170 (give it or take 10) cu.ft of water inside it.
Now, this part may be a shore due to the low ground clearance (not that I am saying it is a wagon.) Slide underneath it and drill a hole on the floor to let the water out. Up to you on whether you crack the moonroof glass or the welds on the doors to get in. If you own a 2006 model and live in the north, I recommend leaving the doors weld shut because they may open now and then.
While still at the dealer site, after all checks out, get up to the speed in the lot and slam the brakes before hitting another FS. Don't worry, the airbags will protect you, but don't go with a full tank because it may catch on fire. Recompose yourself. Now, drive the wreckage to a Saturn dealer and ask for a test drive on an Outlook. Repeat the process, get up to speed again, slam the brakes and...don't hit anything...because they work!!
Return the Outlook and drive home with the queasy feeling of doubt on whether the Outlook's airbag would have deployed.
Collect your FS insurance and buy an Outlook, we all know you want to :P
By the way, I didn't want to post the long list of Freestyle TSB's here, and I am sure the lambdas' list will grow over time. However, I don't think an item by item comparison of the current lists will further your case right now - gas leaks, doors that open with the vehicle in motion, premature brake wear, rear seats that do not fold, etc.
They let us deploy the gear onto an 07 AWD GT (we wanted FWD) and drive it for about 40 minutes, no salesperson along the ride.
We fit the twins in 3rd row (2nd row is for our 3rd upcoming child) without any problems (they are two year-olds anyway). Wife complained about the opening between folded 2nd row and C -pillar, but the driver's seat won her.
No seat anchors back there (the Outlook has 1) :-(
The short trunk worried us a bit too, nice touch with the storage under the cargo floor (2 cu. ft)
Mazda was really smart about their design. Once they conquer the driver/buyer, he won't care much whether the passengers behind will enjoy the same comfort as in a TX or Outlook.
The raised tracks for 2nd row seats are a downer (they are flush with the floor in the lambdas.) Maybe that's a good thing because they will not collect dirt over time, but they really get in the way of the feet for tall people sitting in 2nd row.
Dealer tried to withhold information on the 2008 models until I called them on it. They suddenly "found" a brochure behind someone's desk. The 3.7 liter engine is listed at the same mpg (corrected for EPA 2008) as the the 07, contrary to some rumors that it picked up 1 mpg city.
They "confessed" that the 08's will start to arrive in a few weeks. Torque will peak sooner and higher, that thing will go 0-60 in 7.5 seconds. Not sure I want the wife driving the kids around with that kind of zoom-zoom under the hood.
Worried about those seat inserts on the GT, although people said it only affects drivers 200lbs and above.
A nice touch for 2008 is the rear-camera image overlay in the rear view mirror, but the dealer wasn't clear on whether you need the big no-no Nav system.
That was a little grim. So we can't decide which vehicle is best with a recall comparison (though we do know which has the least). Now thtat that's over, to new fighting ground.
By all means, enough with the TX vs. lambdas discussion. There will be probably another answer to that posting but I am done with the argument.
I am still going to post numbers and impressions about the CX9 and the new Chrysler minivans. All attempts to steer them towards a FS vs. CX9 or FS. vs T&C will be greeted with a :P symbol. I am sure everybody else can't take it anymore.