Karl's Daily Log Book - READ ONLY

2391 messages, Last post on Nov 30, 2005 at 6:50 AM

You are in the Automotive News & Views-Archives Forum. Your Hosts are steve_ & claires

What is this discussion about? Coupe, Sedan, SUV

Karl Brauer is the Editor in Chief of Edmunds.com, which means he finds himself in a different vehicle almost every day of the week. If you want a daily road test review regarding the latest cars and trucks to hit the market, along with commentary on everything from auto industry happenings to L.A. drivers to his latest close encounter with Johnny Law, this is the place to be.

Outline

Messages Page 5 of 239: 1; 2; 3; 4; 5; 6; 7; 8; ...; 239; Prev; Next; Last

#41 of 2391 Volvo XC90 - Safety by etoileb Mar 18, 2005 (4:14 am)
Replying to: editor_karl (Mar 04, 2005 4:27 pm) "I would bet that any research on the subject would prove the opposite) then I'm going to stick with my position that the XC90 is EXTREMELY safe -- desptie being an SUV (to me it's really a tall wagon)." Karl, I hate to be the fly in the ointment in the safety debate, but I would feel a lot safer driving out there without SUVs. Sure, Volvo have done a lot to improve passenger safety. However, IMHO the debate should move on as to what SUV manufacturers are going to do to improve 3rd party safety (in particular passengers in a crash partner car and pedestrians). I don't particularly care about the MPG for SUVs or their contribution to greenhouse gasses -as I've been impressed with the lengths manufacturers have gone to to address these issues in recent years. When I lie awake at night, its because my mind ticks over visuallising a "tall 4000lb wagon" going straight OVER the crumple zones on the other cars that were designed to protect my children's fragile bodies. If SUV manufacturers were REALLY serious about everyone's safety, they might consider a few woeful design flaws in their current models: - not putting the vehicle on frame-rail truck chassis which does nothing for kinetic energy absorption - dropping the ride height during of the vehicle for speeds greater than 30mph (this would also reduce roll-over risk). - I'd love to see a drop in mass, but realistically short of using expensive composites, I can't see this happening. There is of course an alternative, whereby everyone drives around in tall heavy vehicles with bullet proof frames and the relative masses of cars becomes less of an issue (that of course is unless you are an unlucky pedestrian). This works great if you ignore the increased gas use, new capital expenditure for 75% of the nation, and until somebody breaks rank and ups the ante by buying "Hummer Big Brother" - and we all have to follow suit. I could mention plan B, "Lets down size", but that would mean change... Karl, don't get me wrong. I thing Edmunds, and its forum in particular, are the best things on the web. But I do think that this trait of keeping schtum on the effects of driving SUV on OTHER people's safety, is something that an editor should crow about. For those who are seriously interested in safety of SUVs, see the link below: http://www.hwysafety.org/srpdfs/sr3804.pdf Replies to this message: lev_berkovich (Mar 18, 2005 2:51 pm)
#42 of 2391 FUD by mirth Mar 18, 2005 (8:03 am)
Yeah, a compact car is not going to fair real well in a collision with an SUV. But then, it won't fair real well hitting a large car either. And as far as pedestrians go, they're in sorry shape no matter what kind of car hits them. Sorry if you love small cars, but, as a wise man once said, you can't change the laws of physics. I could mention plan B, "Lets down size", but that would mean change... Yeah, and not necessarily for the better. Ever try and fit two child seats into the back of a Corolla? Hope you don't want to recline. And heaven forbid you have more than two kids. There are trade-offs in larger vehicles, but the utility is worth it for a lot of people. You might want to think about that before dismissing these vehicles as "foolish excess". Finally, studies have shown that the number of fatalities per miles driven has actually remained steady or gone down even as more people get on the road and more people drive large vehicles. Face it, even if we all drove Geo Metros, driving a car is a potentially dangerous situation, and people would still get killed, mostly due to poor driver judgement (DUI, no seat belts) and not because of the vehicles.
#43 of 2391 Re: Well... [mirth] by cteng1 Mar 18, 2005 (8:56 am)
Replying to: mirth (Mar 17, 2005 1:13 pm) $1000? I know that's what an installed aftermarket one costs, but Honday wants $1600 for their factory installed DVD system. Plus, on the Touring model, you need to buy the Nav system as well, which is another $2200 (all prices MSRP). We went the portable route with our new Odyssey...
#44 of 2391 Yikes! by mirth Mar 18, 2005 (9:25 am)

#45 of 2391 Re: March 17 [editor_karl] by daddyd Mar 18, 2005 (11:21 am)
Replying to: editor_karl (Mar 17, 2005 9:53 am) I just bought an '05 Ody (EX-L with DVD). I have to say, the PAX tires plus not being able to add the "plus one" seat (there are no seat belts for that seat in the Touring) where the deal breaker on the Touring model. I'm sure that a lot of Touring model buyers will start regretting their choice once they have to deal with any tire issue. From what I hear, even rotating the tires on your own is not easy.... Anyway, we love the new ody and even though at first I didn't want to spend the extra $$ on the DVD player, the way it's integrated in the vehicle is really amazing. I was surprised about that. It's not just bolted to ceiling like a aftermarket solution. What milage are you getting out of the VCM engine? There is a lot of talking going on on the forums that 20/28 is way to optimistic. D.
#46 of 2391 Re: Some wagon love [andys120] by daddyd Mar 18, 2005 (12:06 pm)
Replying to: andys120 (Mar 10, 2005 3:58 pm) The problem with the newer audi models is not the reliability (they regularly come in high in German car magazines long term tests). It's more the maintenance cost. Doesn't matter if you buy new/lease and don't keep it longer than 4 years but after that it's a different story. I heard that to do a timing belt change on the Audi 2.8 V6 engine you have to drop the engine!! Now that's some fun right there. Interestingly, they started using timing chains on the new FSI engine, like BMW and MB. The timing chain is, by the way, on the back side (not the front) of the engine.
#47 of 2391 Re: Volvo XC90 - Safety [etoileb] by lev_berkovich Mar 18, 2005 (2:51 pm)
Replying to: etoileb (Mar 18, 2005 4:14 am) Great point and it opens a great opportunity to give some additional kudos to the XC90, which, unlike many other SUV does have an additional low cross member to activate your car's crumple zone, and XC90 (though as many other) is not a body over the frame.
#48 of 2391 Re: Well... [mirth] by editor_karl Mar 18, 2005 (8:35 pm)
Replying to: mirth (Mar 17, 2005 1:13 pm) I agree with you completely. I was talking to my wife the other day and telling her how portable DVD players have already become the next "car phone." Remember when all cell phones were mounted in cars, and called "car phones." The problem? When you weren't in your car, you couldn't use the phone. Not to mention the hassle every time you sold your car. So now everyone takes their phone with them, and we have "car kits" and/or "hands-free kits" that make hooking your cell phone up to any car a simple process. The same thing is already happening with portable DVD players. They are cheaper, often have better picture quality, and are certainly more versatile (your kids use them on the way to the airport, then use them on the plane after you take off). They aren't as well integrated into the vehicle's audio system as the factory units, of course, but with FM transmitter abilities (I just bought one with this feature for my sister's family at Christmas) it's almost as good.
#49 of 2391 March 18 by editor_karl Mar 18, 2005 (9:25 pm)
I instrument tested five cars today at our test facility. Here's my quick take on each one: 2005 BMW X5 4.8is -- Even faster than I expected, and much more capable in the slalom than any SUV has a right to be. It was the fastest vehicle through the slalom today, pretty amazing when you see what else I tested. I never really liked the X5 because I thought it was a taller, less fuel-efficient, worse-handling and smaller-cargo-area version of the 5 Series wagon. That's still all true...but it sure does drive well. 2006 Volkswagen Jetta -- I'm a bit disappointed. The styling looks like a tarted up Corolla, and the interior doesn't feel as upscale as it used to. I think the weak dollar is making it tough on European automakers, especially the ones trying to produce compelling cars for under $20,000 (though Mini is doing it...). It did drive well, with typical German steering and brakes (meaning excellent). I guess the market will decide if this latest redesign was for the better -- or not. 2006 Mercedes CLS500 -- I drove this briefly a few weeks ago, and felt it was a nice sedan with cool exterior styling. But I didn't know if the swoopy roofline was reason enough to consider it. Now that I've pushed it hard at a test facility I can see that its dynamics are pretty amazing for a luxury sedan (it really responds well in corners, and stops on a dime -- 114 feet from 60 mph, if I remember correctly). Plus it really does look great, inside and out. Too rich for my blood, but for S-Class and 7 Series intenders, this one is a must-test-drive. Honda Ridgeline -- I already commented on my street driving experience (March 10). The test facility experience follows suit, proving this is a very nice car/SUV that happens to have an open bed (and a trunk, too). I'm still not sure about its ultimate functionality for most consumers, but it certainly fills a non-crowded niche. Volkswagen Phaeton -- The car no-one wants to like, no matter how good it is. Two undeniable facts about this one. 1.) If it didn't have any Volkswagen emblems on it, people would have to acknowlege its many impressive traits. 2.) It is difficult for most people to quickly alter their views on a company, regardless of the product it produces. I would also remind everyone that not so long ago BMW and Volvo were not, in any way, shape, or form, luxury brands. Yes, the Audi A8 makes more sense at this price point. But that doesn't make the Phaeton a "worse" car, just a harder one to justify. For the record, I'd also buy the A8 before the Phaeton.
#50 of 2391 Re: lev [davem2001] by doug889 Mar 19, 2005 (3:16 am)
Replying to: davem2001 (Mar 11, 2005 1:59 pm) Bingo!!! Replies to this message: lev_berkovich (Mar 19, 2005 10:47 am)