Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
Meet your fellow owners in our Owners Clubs
See Official Rules for eligibility and other requirements.
Meet your fellow owners in our Owners Clubs
See Official Rules for eligibility and other requirements.
Comments
Well as you alluded to, it actually had a bigger engine than most of the vehicles we're discussing.
I had an older girlfriend at the time whose father bought her a new 73 purple Gremlin X. It had high back buckets and a manual transmission between them. At the time, I thought it was a pretty fun ride. I still have a photo of me with my boot up on the rear bumper, my hair down my back and a mature marijuana plant in my hand. Ah, those days of being very young, pretty and stupid. TMI? :blush:
Do you hear what you are saying? I bet if you were single without kids you would buy some little sports coupe with a little backseat. And there is nothing wrong with that. One man's idea of a flaw mean nothing to another man.
Absolutely, and I explained why right then and there.
FS fans go and ask only for the good data, 30mpg plus. So first I asked why, and pointed out that this would slant the mileage figures.
I then asked for those under 20, so we'd get a complete report of both the good and the bad. That's what should have been asked for in the first place.
That's how you get the whole picture. Looks like you might see anywhere from 13mpg all the way up to 33mpg in a Freestyle. I think that's useful to know. :shades:
Some of us find CLASS more beautiful than FLASH. :P
Before I win that bet (more on that later,) I pointed out that you listed rejection factors as the deciding motive for a purchase.
People don't buy an Enclave because its chrome grille can be seen from the moon with a naked eye or because they crack the pavement underneath them; they ignore these aspects because of other things they like.
So, if someone comes over and asks "Jim, nice Taurus X, how do you like it?", the answer is never going to be "I bought it because I don't care that it looks like the box it came in" but probably something like "It fits all of our stuff, it is safe and it gets good mileage".
Since your examples were not acutely negative, I gave you the benefit of doubt asking whether you were arguing that way.
Now for the bet you lost; when I was fresh out of college and still single without kids, I started a small company and didn't have money for my own car before I got married two years later.
After a couple of years, things turned out much better and, still without kids, I bought a brand new...Mercury Sable. For the same money I could buy an Acura Integra, but I went for the comfort. I was 25 and still remember driving to the Mercury/Lincoln dealership for oil changes and talking to elderly Lincoln owners older than my parents.
You don't have to give up one for the other. The likes of the 300 is classy. And define class. If we're talking about pros and cons, the only thing the 300 loses to a Montego is headroom and trunkspace. And having something in your driveway that's nice to look at is a plus, too.
To me, the 300 isn't classy, it's flashy.
Ah, a 6 series, that's a different story. You said little sports coupe. I have not given up on a 6-series in this lifetime, but I will probably have to see my three kids through college first.
Ford has made some classy and understated designs over the years, some examples being the original T-bird, Lincoln Mark I, II, III, VII; the 61-69 Continental, 66-67 Mercury Comet, 67-68 Cougar, 69-70 LTD. Ford occasionally does bold well too, e.g. original Taurus, 83-86 T-bird, 89 Probe, teh last Cougar coupe, 97 F150.
The 500/Montego is not classy or flashy or remarkable in any way styling-wise, except for being a boring derivative of an Audi A6. Wow, did I get off the subject of CUVs!
That is what happened to me. When she said that she wanted seating for at least 7, I thought a minivan was the way to go. More bang (interior space and options) for the buck. But, she really wanted an Outlook. Loved the way it looks. Loves everything about it, so that is what we got.
In one hand I had a couple thousand dollars, in the other was a happy wife. Pretty easy choice. If the wife ain't happy, ain't nobody happy.
I also got an agreement that the next vehicle purchase decision will be mine to make. Mine alone. Then we will have an odd garage. An Outlook next to a compact. Something like a Mini.
Started doing some research on CX-9 safety ratings.
No IIHS data for it yet.
NHSA gave it 5 stars on frontal crash test, but has not performed side crash or rollover tests yet.
At 4500 lbs, not a horse jockey either, but the new 3.7 liter will make it move fast. C&D already clocked the 2007 3.5 version at 7.8 seconds from 0-60, which will make it one of the fastest, if not the fastest, CUV in the segment.
How true...I've heard it said like this:
Happy wife, happy life.
In my garage there's a Fit beside my FS.
BTW...you can go to any MPG forum on Edmunds and read about really great and really poor mpg, so this sort of thing is hard to qualify. I think a lot has to do with the driver and the type of driving.
With my FS MPG, I consistently get in the low 20s in mixed driving and upper 20's on the highway. My FS has about 54K miles on it. With my Fit, I'll get in the low 30s in mixed and high 30s on the highway, and the Fit has about 13K miles. Based on the MPG forum on Edmunds, I'm at the upper end of the MPG spectrum. Not the best, but then on the highway I'm not driving 60mph! When my wife drives, she races around a little more in both cars and the MPG suffers by about 10% because of it.
Anyway, with respect to safety and MPG, I don't think any of the CUVs being discussed here are that much better or worse to make it much of a discussion topic...more just spinning-of-wheels :P
And the reasons a person gives for buying a car are sometimes a lot different then the real reason. Someone buying a Lexus SUV might say that they bought it for safety, reliability and that it holds all of their stuff, but the real reason will either be that they're wanting to impress someone, or that all of their friends have cars in a similar "class," so they don't want to be seen driving a Toyota Highlander.
It seems Chrysler skimped on the mechanics (push-rod engines or a 16/23 mpg 4.0 liter engine,) which will only be solved after 2010. But at least 6 gears are available.
I (mid-50s) still get around pretty good most of the time, esp. if I keep up the exercise, etc. But I would rather sit a little more upright, glad I don't have the '74 Datsun Z any more...long way up from sitting almost on the pavement :-).
I work out regularly but do have longer than normal legs. I was probably thinking more of the several rental cars I had over the past 5-10 years...more in the less expensive class of vehicles used for a one day rental while in the shop, no need to spend an extra $20 for a big vehicle to make one round trip to work. Some of them have been more like sitting with your butt in a hole, uncomfortable for even a fit person. I had a '74 Datsun 260Z way back then...I liked it then but would not want it as a daily drive now due to driving position. I've gotten used to the more upright position and really like being able to see traffic better.
The table and seats that face each other remind me of VW Vanagons, so perhaps we should not be surprised that VW will use this platform for their own new vans.
Keep in mind the mileage figures are under the new 2008 EPA revised standards. 16/23 matches what Honda gets without VCM.
The MPG champs among minivans for 2008 are still all Toyotas and Hondas with VCM (both 17/24). Chrysler's 3.3l V6 matches those numbers but the press is calling it underpowered, and it only gets a 4 speed auto.
Similarly, you'll see all the Crossovers drop about 10% in their 2008 EPA numbers when those come out. Expect about a 2mpg drop in the EPA numbers.
First Drive: 2008 Dodge Grand Caravan
They do look shorter, maybe because of the oversized sliding doors.
Some of the external numbers are class toppers:
Overall length: 202.5
Wheelbase: 121.2
201/118.1 for the Odyssey.
But the disappointment is really inside, even with the extra inches on the outside, it gave out 2-3 inches of legroom on 2nd/3rd rows and another 6 cu.ft. behind 3d row.
I guess we can blame the big nose. I don't know, somehow that longer hood was meant to create a better styling, but it reminds me of the deceased GM minivans every time I look at it.
That's a nice, long wheelbase. I bet the ride is pretty smooth. Hope the turning circle is reasonable, though.
There is something to be said about taking two years longer to fall short from all competitor's dimensions.
I'm sure they had to make some compromises to get the 2nd row seats to swivel, maybe the 3rd row had to be farther back to make room for all those legs?
I don't think an inch here or there will matter much, all minivans pretty much have enough space in all 3 rows. If cargo space is tight they'll just toss one of those Sears X-Cargo things on top and/or a bike rack.