Edmunds.com | Inside Line | Auto Observer Your Account | Help | Directory
You are here:
![[F]](http://a332.g.akamai.net/f/332/936/12h/www.edmunds.com/media/townhall/webxicons/site.gif){kind=small}
Forums
Automotive News & Views Inside Line Article Comments Edmunds turns 40 - guess the most significant car from each year!
349 messages, Last post on Feb 27, 2007 at 5:26 AM
You are in the Inside Line Article Comments Forum. Your Hosts are steve_ & claires
Edmunds Most Significant Vehicles, 1966-2006
|
Replying to: lemko (Oct 23, 2006 9:25 am) |
|
I know it's jumping ahead, but I think 2002 would have to be the redesigned Nissan Altima... It put Nissan back on the map in competing with Honda & Toyota. Everywhere you looked was a new Altima. The 2.5L could crank out 180hp, which is impressive for a 4 cylinder; and the 3.5L V6 put out at least 220, if I remember correctly...
|
|
|
|
|
Replying to: alpha1517 (Oct 23, 2006 10:11 am)
|
|
|
but I'd say the 1992 (or 1993 or whenever it was redesigned) Grand Cherokee could really be credited with kicking off the trend toward more luxurious SUVs, at least smaller ones. It was still pretty trucky, although it was unitized and not body-on-frame, like an S-10 Blazer or Ranger-based Explorer was. They were pretty nice inside, too. While you could get leather in something like an Explorer or S-10 Blazer, they just didn't feel as upscale. I always thought the Lexus RX300 looked a bit like a slicked-back, Toyota interpretation of a Grand Cherokee. If the ML didn't come out until the 1998 model year, what did they use in that second Jurassic Park movie? I saw that movie in theatres around late spring of 1997 IIRC, and I'm sure that would mean a great deal of that movie was actually filmed in 1996. Did MB let them use some prototype MLs in that movie? I remember when I saw them in the movie, I didn't know what to make of them at the time because they didn't seem to fit into any existing convention. They certainly weren't styled like your typical truck-based SUV of the time. They really looked more like minivans at the time, I guess because they were more rounded like a minivan. Wasn't the ML also the vehicle that torpedoed MB's quality reputation?
|
|
|
Replying to: andre1969 (Oct 24, 2006 9:41 am) Yes, the ML (M class) had very bad reliability at first -- I'm not sure if other Mercedes were also heading down that road at the same time -- Fintail?
|
|
|
Replying to: 210delray (Oct 24, 2006 5:25 pm) So, likely some kind of pre-production vehicles. All product placement, really added to the hype surrounding the vehicle at the time. MB started really having problems around that time...Some W210 E class were glitchy, then the ML came around and they were really dodgy at new. The W220 S-class for model year 2000 was out in the spring of 99 and had several model years of issues. Early W203 C-class had problems too. 1998 was probably the first really iffy year. |
|
'00 through '06 posted, so that just about sums it up. Meh.
|
|
|
Replying to: xwesx (Oct 25, 2006 9:03 am)  Anyway, except for the 350Z in '03, I can't argue with any of them... A better batch than the previous five choices..
|
|
|
Replying to: kyfdx (Oct 25, 2006 9:40 am) Certainly for 2005, the new Mustang must have been a strong contender for the honors. I agree with the 300 choice, but the Mustang really showed that Ford is capable of doing it right and producing an all-around outstanding car (when it wants to). It also gave us a affordable domestic performance car that can hold its own and seems likely to be the match that reignites the pony car wars. 
|
|
|
Replying to: british_rover (Oct 23, 2006 6:12 pm)
|
|
You are here:
Forums
Automotive News & Views Inside Line Article Comments Edmunds turns 40 - guess the most significant car from each year!
New? Join Now!
Forum Tools
Search Forums
Browse by Vehicle
Browse by Board
Browse by Topic
Today's Chats
