You are here: Forums Wagons Station Wagon vs SUV

Station Wagon vs SUV

1426 messages,  Last post on Feb 21, 2007 at 8:37 AM

You are in the Wagons Forum. Your Host is kcram

What is this discussion about? Wagon

Messages Page 79 of 144 1 ... 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 ... 144 Prev Next Last

Go To Msg # Search This Discussion

#773 of 1426 But could they by boaz47 Jun 17, 2003 (10:07 am)
make them parallel? Wouldn't they be superior in effect because they could tow more and do more? I would much rather have such a vehicle than a WRX because it would be far more versatile. Would that put me at odds with the PC crowd? I think you are right. Some of us get the same flak when we put a larger throttle body, add a cold air intake, and get a cat back exhaust system.
#774 of 1426 why would they be by nippononly Jun 17, 2003 (10:24 am)
able to tow more? And while they would be superior for offroading ability, they would be inferior in handling and acceleration. Yes, I think it would be a very plausible thing to sell them as "side-by-side" models rather than as top-of-the-lines. In fact, XS with the leather and enormous (double? - I forget) moonroof would probably be the top of the line. I think of top of the line as the most luxurious trim, not the fastest.
#775 of 1426 boaz47 by li_sailor Jun 17, 2003 (10:29 am)
I'm curious...why are you concerned about what the targets of anti-SUV sentiment are? Do they restrict your ability to buy an SUV or a wagon?   As for adding a transfer case to the Forester...I can see it appealing to those wanting to go off roading, although that's a pretty small % and I wouldn't think it's part of Subaru's "natural" market". As for extending the towing ability with that transfer case...I find that a bit dubious. It won't change wht you can tow on the open road, which I would think means it wouldn't change its tow rating from 2400 lbs much. This is PWC and Whaler territory...would a transfer case be appealing to those users?
#776 of 1426 towing by rsholland Jun 17, 2003 (10:35 am)
would be the same for both models.   In terms of what is "best," that would be in the eyes of those shopping. To someone who wants a bit more street prowess the "X-models" would have the edge. Those who are hunters and fisherman might view the M-models" as best. Think Legacy vs Outback, but a few steps further apart.   Different strokes for different folks...   Bob
#777 of 1426 by ballistic Jun 17, 2003 (11:35 am)
ibhaley wrote, "Boy, I like the comments I am hearing from the people that are starting to test drive XTs. Sounds like the engine (and the car) is everything I hoped it would be when I took a chance and ordered it without reading any reviews."   That was a tad chancy, but based on my short run in an automatic, and especially the report on how the 5-speed drives, it appears that the XT will meet every expectation I had except thirst for and cost of fuel. If things hold together over a long lifespan, even that mild disappointment will begin to fade.    "I can't wait!! "   Last time I selected a car for my tastes (as opposed to my wife's) was 14 years ago. I'm way overdue.   - jack
#778 of 1426 Even though the gas mileage is a bit disappointing... by rsholland Jun 17, 2003 (11:44 am)
there really isn't anything out there, as a "package," that can match it.   It'll run and hid from other V6 SUVs, Only the Jeep Liberty V6 offers a 5-speed, and the XT will run and hide from it in a straight line as well as on a twisty road.   I found, when I drove the 5-speed, it was so much fun running through the gears, I might never get out of single digits, in terms of mileage.   So, because of the gas mileage, I give it 4.5 stars, not 5.   Bob
#779 of 1426 Dreaming... by ballistic Jun 17, 2003 (11:55 am)
Regarding Foresters with 2-speed transfer cases, nippononly asks "why would they be able to tow more?"   It probably would not increase the stated maximum tow limit, but it probably would increase the "practical" limit. Example: The current tow limit for a 5-speed MT Forester is 2,400#. If what I'd like to tow is a boat, motor, and trailer, I'd hazard a guess that trying to haul 2,400# out of the water and up a steep launch ramp from a standstill would either be completely beyond the capability of a MT Forester, or would destroy the clutch very quickly. I'll guess that the "practical" limit for this particular usage would be more like 1,000-1,200#. If, on the other hand, that same Forester had the low-range 2-speed gearset from Foresters sold elsewhere, it would enable the "practical" boat-towing limit to rise closer to the 2,400# maximum. This would particularly be true if the low-range gear reduction was greater than the 17-20% that foreign Foresters currently have. 2:1 reduction would be about right, both for getting heavy towed loads underway on steep grades and (happily) for the more serious off-roading that some Forester owners would like to do.   I would readily pay a thousand more for my XT if I could have the same identical car equipped with a 2:1 low-range case. It probably would add less than 100 pounds to the Forester's weight. This would in no way impair the car's functionality; it would only enhance it.   - jack
#780 of 1426 by ballistic Jun 17, 2003 (12:18 pm)
boaz47 says "The people that condemn a large SUV that is doing nothing illegal but at the same time embrace the right of 911 owners to drive such vehicles because they handle well are the ones I have targeted...I have seen posts,even in these forums, saying that sports car drivers at least use the vehicles as intended. Not so I am positive. I used to wrench for a friend in a Porsche club in the 80s and I can say from experience that most sports car people do not race their cars."   These are classic straw-man arguments. For one thing, I would no sooner defend a gas-guzzling Porsche than a gas-guzzling Excursion. However, the fuel consumed by an average sports car (which, almost by definition, is relatively small and lightweight) in no way resembles that of the average SUV.   For another thing, by whose definition are sports cars suitable ONLY for racing? This non-issue has been raised here before, perhaps by you. A small, nimble, responsive, open car is a delight to drive on any handy winding road, and very few burn gas at 12 or 15 miles per gallon in the process. It is unclear why you're so hung up on Porsches, but if they offend you so, think Miata or Toyota MR-2 - the MGs and Triumphs of the modern era. Vehicles like these make outstanding commuters, turning ordinary drives into pleasure while sipping fuel at well above 30mpg. Contrast that with your average SUV, which is also used the vast proportion of its time commuting - often with one person aboard.   "Far less than 10 percent ever drive their vehicles at 70 percent of what they can do let alone 100."   So? I'm far less offended by a sports car driver rounding a curve at 50% of its maximum velocity, while burning fossil fuel at 30mpg, than I am at a Suburban driver, alone in his vehicle, guzzling fuel at a 14mpg rate. Who is being harmed by the sports car driver's using his vehicle at less than its absolute maximum performance level? Not you, not me, not anyone. Can you seriously make the same statement
#781 of 1426 by ballistic Jun 17, 2003 (12:37 pm)
Bob says, "Even though the gas mileage is a bit disappointing...there really isn't anything out there, as a "package," that can match it. It'll run and hid from other V6 SUVs, Only the Jeep Liberty V6 offers a 5-speed,..."   Not quite. There's also the excellent, great-looking V-6 5-speed Nissan Pathfinder (which I considered a number of times but couldn't stomach the 16mpg fuel consumption) and the 5-speed V-6 Suzuki Grand Vitara, and (I think still available) 5-speed V-6 Isuzu Rodeo Sport. Maybe a few others. But every one has an archaic solid rear axles on leaf springs. So you're right - if you want a manual gearbox on a reasonably-sized, moderately priced AWD wagon/SUV that also offers exceptional acceleration, anti-gas-hog fuel consumption and nimble handling, you're pretty much down to one: The '04 Forester XT.   That pretty much 'splains my decision to buy one.   - jack
#782 of 1426 commuting by nippononly Jun 17, 2003 (12:42 pm)
is one of the big reasons that wagons, even many minivans, are a better option to SUVs...many if not most will be used for commuting, and the day to day fuel economy of the SUVs is always worse.   I say, build that Forester M!! I want a proper 2+ reduction ratio in the low range though - not a 17% reduction gear. I will take the first one they sell.   Correction to above: Liberty is not the only V-6 with a manual - XTerra has a stick in the non-S/C V-6 model too, although the gas mileage of that model is lousy, and the Forester WILL be faster. Oh yeah, and for offroad, I would definitely prefer the "archaic" live axle and leaf springs, but alas times change...the long-travel suspension I am used to in the Subie would be the next best thing. I wouldn't want the Pathy for the rough stuff - too long, too low, and poor clearance under suspension components.

Messages Page 79 of 144 1 ... 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 ... 144 Prev Next Last

Go To Msg # Search This Discussion

You are here: Forums Wagons Station Wagon vs SUV