You are here:
Forums
SUVs
Crossover SUV Comparison

7139 messages, Last post on Dec 05, 2009 at 7:16 AM
You are in the SUVs Forum. Your Hosts are steve_ & tidester
|
Replying to: vad1819 (Dec 04, 2007 6:18 am) I agree that the Pathfinder's 3rd row is not comfy, way too upright IMO. I drove an Armada after sampling a Quest but it got 13/17 mpg even before the EPA downrated the figures. Plus my kid could not reach the door handles.
|
|
|
They're here. Saw one last night at a PTA meeting. I'm pretty sure I know the owner, but it was a bit late to ask for a test ride. That's the first one I've seen out of the auto show circuit. |
|
|
|
|
Replying to: ateixeira (Dec 04, 2007 11:18 am) Hehe, my thought exactly |
|
|
Replying to: ateixeira (Dec 04, 2007 11:18 am) Speaking of the one we are not allowed to speak of....I took a 2005 XLE on trade the other day, and the owner said they were trading out of it because the average fuel economy they were getting was 18mpg, and they had to use premium fuel. Is premium recommended? They traded into a Mazda3 5-door, BTW.
|
|
|
|
|
Replying to: aviboy97 (Dec 04, 2007 11:38 am) |
|
|
Replying to: aviboy97 (Dec 04, 2007 11:38 am) The new 2GR engine (3.5l V6) also only requires regular octane in Toyota models. Some Lexus models (the 2GR-FSE in the IS350 comes to mind) add Direct Injection and over 300hp, and in those cases premium fuel is required. Both engines power different years of the RX and the Highlander crossovers. So it's pretty much what you'd expect, you can run 87 octane, but if you buy the high performance model expect to pay more for fuel as well. Here is where it gets truly odd - Toyota uses the new 3.5l in the GS hybrid, but stayed with the 3.3l for the Highlander Hybrid and RX400H. Meanwhile, the non-hybrid crossovers get the 3.5l 2GR V6. Why they choose to continue building the 3.3l, which they say costs $1000 more to manufacture, is beyond me.
|
|
|
Replying to: ateixeira (Dec 04, 2007 11:52 am) |
|
|
Replying to: albook (Dec 03, 2007 7:47 pm) We have had 2 GMC vehicles in the last 4 years. We traded in our '99 GMC Jimmy back in 2004 on a new Camry. It had 80k on it. After we'd spent about 3000 dollars fixing the front transaxle and CV joint problems, alternator, sagging door hinges, and electronic problems, we decided to get rid of it before it cost us anymore. At 55k, the Camry's only been back to the dealer for one minor "non-maintenance" repair. We also traded our GMC Sierra last February. After 75k we'd replaced the alternator, power brake booster, windshield wiper motor (twice), water pump (twice), and temp sending unit (which never worked right). I'd almost forgot that back when I got my Sierra (which I'd ordered) I couldn't even pick it up from the dealer until they replaced the whole rear-end assembly. This was due to faulty welding on the rear axle shaft which made the brake drums scrape on the dust shield. It got shipped to the dealer that way. Anyway, I traded that in on our CX-9 last February, and after 10k, the CX-9 has only been back for one TSB for the front door checkers and routine maintenance. Maybe GMC quality has improved since these vehicles were made, and there were many things on those vehicles which I actually liked, but I can't afford to keep giving them chances to get it right. I hope someday I'll be able to consider them when it's time for a new car again...
|
|
|
Replying to: aviboy97 (Dec 04, 2007 12:53 pm) You can, I suppose. Just no need.
|
|
|
|
|
Replying to: ateixeira (Dec 04, 2007 1:34 pm) I'd just run regular through it. |
|
New? Join Now!
Forum Tools
Search Forums
Browse by Vehicle
2010 GMC Acadia
2009 Hyundai Santa Fe
2009 Ford Taurus X
2011 Toyota RAV4
2010 Nissan Rogue
2010 Honda Accord Crosstour
2010 Dodge Journey



Browse by Board
Browse by Topic
Today's Chats