Edmunds dealer partner, Bayway Leasing, is now offering transparent lease deals via these forums. Click here to see the latest vehicles!
Popular New Cars
Popular Used Sedans
Popular Used SUVs
Popular Used Pickup Trucks
Popular Used Hatchbacks
Popular Used Minivans
Popular Used Coupes
Popular Used Wagons
Comments
I bet 90% of the time it's just two or three people, and no groceries or soccer balls.
-mike
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 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.
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%...
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]
:-)
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.
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.
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.
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.
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...."
There's obviously a line between that and a Chevy Tahoe.
-mike
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!
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 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!
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
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.
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 ;-)
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.
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
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?
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.
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!
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.
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
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 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.
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
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 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.
20MPG on the 2WD
-juice
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
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!
Steve, Host
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)
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.
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!
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
Steve, Host
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.
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
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.
:-)
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...
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
By the way, can you tell me where one would find a list of the best-selling SUV's. Thanks much!