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 80 of 143 1 ... 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 ... 143 Prev Next Last

Go To Msg # Search This Discussion

#788 of 1426 I would call by nippononly Jun 17, 2003 (1:43 pm)
Rendezvous a crossover - it is an FWD/AWD unibody riding on a minivan chassis. Score one for the crossovers! I don't think crossovers will fade in a few years like a fad - I think they will dominate truck-based SUV sales before too long. Certainly as soon as Ford takes Explorer to a crossover design.   I liked Edmunds' extensive use of the crossover term in the comparo. For the first time we have a third term to make a more meaningful conversation out of SUV trends, and I believe it is the crossovers that will sell well to families, not the SUVs.   ballistic: I love your gas pricing scheme! That is just like how the electric company charges for excessive use.
#789 of 1426 yes, boaz by nippononly Jun 17, 2003 (1:44 pm)
that would certainly be a big change, because we certainly can't distinguish the rich today as they drive around in their Mercedes and Lexus SUVs. Not.
#790 of 1426 by ballistic Jun 17, 2003 (2:26 pm)
boaz47 writes "and then we could tell who the very wealthy were every day. All the managers and bosses would drive big cars to work and the employees could drive Kia Reos. Cold I know, but that is just how things are. We could develop a cast system that makes India look like a democracy."   A token sense of social responsibility among millions of gas-guzzler buyers would, of course, make these sorts of horrific (in your view) outcomes utterly unnecessary."   "People will work two jobs and decide not to have kids simply to afford what they want in life, be that a big car or a big house."   Let me get this straight: You think smaller families, or even <gasp> more people choosing to be childless, is a terrible thing?   Spare me the 'it's my god-given right to consume conspicuously, no matter what I want and no matter how grave the consequence' rhetoric. It's folks with that mindset who will accelerate the scenario you just described.   Time to move into the 21st century.   - jack
#791 of 1426 by ballistic Jun 17, 2003 (2:45 pm)
nippononly says, "I love your gas pricing scheme! That is just like how the electric company charges for excessive use."   That pricing model will (and should!)increasingly become reality, for more and more commodities that are derived from nonrenewable resources.   There are altogether too many neanderthals who blindly refuse to recognize that times, and resource availabilities, are changing. All too often, the attitude is "it's a free country, so I demand my right to buy anything I want, no matter how extravagantly I might waste finite resources - I can afford it, so nothing else matters. Least of all the negative impacts my profligate consumption has on others."   It is precisely that obnoxious, unbridled, hedonistic attitude - not my objection to it - that will bring down upon all of us the exact kind of heavy-handed governmental restraints on our freedoms that so horrify the consumption-uber-alles crowd.   - jack
#792 of 1426 Has nothing to do with God given by boaz47 Jun 17, 2003 (2:50 pm)
right ballistic. You and I both know that people buy what they can afford, period. You have indicated a desire for a Audi RS-6. What 450 horses with a fuel rating somewhat less than many SUVs or at best on par with them? Morals strike both ways. Americans get the house, car, whatever based on what they feel they can afford. You may have pointed out already, or someone has, that SUVs and light trucks, represent 50 percent of the vehicles that sold last year. For the sake of Nippon we can include Crossovers. Now living where we do tell me how you expect to change the american buying habits? Do you believe appealing to them to accept someone elses moral judgment will have one slight effect on what they want of feel they need?   I like your idealism even if from a realistic point of view I know it won't happen. Maybe I have been around long enough to know that we as a society aren't willing to give up what we can afford as long as we can afford it. Poll your friends and see how many would vote to charge themselves more so someone else can have what they want. People just aren't that way. I can commute to work in my wife's car and get an average of 33 MPG. With that I would still need way more than 400 gallons a year. If I could afford it would I still live far enough away from the big city and pay $2000.00 a year? Yes I am afraid I would. Do I see any moral implication in that? Sorry, I don't and I doubt the majority of my fellow drivers will either, does anyone?
#793 of 1426 Aftermarket transfer case for the Forester... by rsholland Jun 17, 2003 (3:55 pm)
Why not just import the dual-range tranny, through some 3rd party?   Bob
#794 of 1426 And the beat goes on... by ballistic Jun 17, 2003 (4:11 pm)
boaz47 says "You and I both know that people buy what they can afford, period. Americans get the house, car, whatever based on what they feel they can afford."   Or, more often, how much they can borrow, often on 19% plastic, just to keep feeding that good ol' overconsumption frenzy. Delayed gratification? What's that? Why wait until tomorrow (when I might have actually saved enough to buy a sensible vehicle outright) when I can borrow enough for an Expedition or Escalade today? Won't it be grand, driving along (by myself) in it, or maybe with the wife and two kids rattling around in all nine seats, flaunting our freedom to behave irresponsibly. $40 to fill the tank? No problemo. Just pull out the plastic again. Smog makes sunsets look better anyhow - right? If OPEC tightens the screws again, or I get in over my head, I'll just let the bankruptcy court tell my creditors where to go, and then start the whole process all over again.   "You may have pointed out already, or someone has, that SUVs and light trucks, represent 50 percent of the vehicles that sold last year."   Thank you for making my point better than I could ever have done.   "Now living where we do tell me how you expect to change the american buying habits?"   It begins with better education . It includes, if necessary, ostracizing those stubborn recalcitrants who refuse to get the message that free markets depend for their very existence on some minimal degree of responsible decision-making on the part of consumers.   It ends, if large enough numbers of people continue to flagrantly disregard what should be obvious, with government-mandated incremental pricing for most resource-based commodities. Prices will no longer rise linearly with the amount you want, but rather rise exponentially. You want a McMansion or Escalade or 80' Cigarette boat? Go right ahead. Use ten times more gasoline or electricity or heating oil than your neighbor, pay 100 times as much. If you don't like that differential, change your behavior. If you refuse to change your wastrel ways, pay the piper.   "Maybe I have been around long enough to know that we as a society aren't willing to give up what we can afford as long as we can afford it."   The ominous writing on the wall is plainly visible, but apparently only to those who're willing to open their eyes and exercise a little self-restraint. Unfortunately, a not-so-distant future of real deprivation (or draconian restrictions on freedom, or both) will be brought on much faster - for all of us - by the thoughtless, selfish, ego-stroking excesses of those who cannot be persuaded to voluntarily moderate their wasteful ways.   Escalades, Expeditions, H2 Hummers and Suburbans (and S-Class Mercedes and other over-5,000-pound gargantuan gashogs), being bought maily for daily commutes by millions of faddish lemmings, simply happen to be the to be the clearest evidence of a grotesque, unsustainable binge.   It's time to go on the wagon.   - jack   Those of us who
#795 of 1426 by ballistic Jun 17, 2003 (4:17 pm)
Bob suggests, "Why not just import the dual-range tranny, through some 3rd party?"   I'd think it would be pretty expensive on a onsies-twosies basis. Plus, somebody with expertise needs to discover whether it'll install onto the U.S. versions, and what peripheral components need to be replaced.   Not an easy thing for any individual owner, but perhaps do-able by a Subaru specialty shop someplace.   - jack
#796 of 1426 I only mention that... by rsholland Jun 17, 2003 (4:23 pm)
because the dual range Subaru tranny does not have a separate transfer case, as we know it. It's all in the main tranny, with no add-ons. I would think that's simpler and easier than to develop, engineer and manufacture a separate transfer case to add to the existing transmission.   If you're talking about an automatic, then that's what you would have to do, as Subaru only offers the dual range tranny in a 5-speed manual.   Bob
#797 of 1426 Forester XT by ateixeira Jun 17, 2003 (6:49 pm)
Whoa, guys, go drive an XT. I drove one yesterday, and then a Saturn V6 back-to-back. I was actually looking for a Redline, but the dealer said they won't be here until next spring.   The regular Forester outran a V6 XTerra and V6 Grand Vitara. V6 Santa Fe, too. Check C&D's last cute-ute test.   The XT will outrun the Pathfinder easily. Torque is about the same, but you've got about half a ton less mass to haul in the Subie. In fact I'd say the XT was as quick as the Altima 3.5 SE 5 speed I drove a while ago.   The Vue felt downright sloth-like after the Forester, and yes it was the V6. Noisier and less smooth, too.   The XT that fast. Felt like maybe 0-60 in the 6s. Low 6s.   If Subaru puts the premium package option on a 5 speed, I'm buying one. And BTW, the no-haggle price with a few options was just $23.9k, freight included.   -juice

Messages Page 80 of 143 1 ... 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 ... 143 Prev Next Last

Go To Msg # Search This Discussion

You are here: Forums Wagons Station Wagon vs SUV