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
SUVs Crossover SUV Comparison
7126 messages, Last post on Nov 18, 2009 at 1:27 PM
You are in the SUVs Forum. Your Hosts are steve_ & tidester
|
Replying to: coldcranker (Sep 03, 2008 1:59 pm) However, I lived in Flint Michigan all my life (recently moved to Portland OR) and on both my side and my wifes, our fathers and grandfathers worked for GM. We get really good deals on GM cars, but I would not buy a GM car if I had to walk instead. What they did to their own workers in Michigan is unpardonable. Miles and miles of buried toxic waste under homes, scrapped quality vehicles, you name it. I feel differently about Ford, but I otherwise cannot and would not suggest supporting full American made vehicles. This is coming from a guy who helped his dad flip foreign cars onto their roofs as a kid, back in the 90s - when there were NO foreign cars in Flint. You cannot support em just because they are American. They treat Americans with pure contempt. Only way they will learn is to lose.
|
|
|
|
|
Replying to: skeksis (Dec 05, 2008 2:21 am) I mainly say to people to just buy the vehicle that gets good crash test ratings, best-in-class fuel economy, handles well, steers well, quiet enough, rides smoothe enough, is roomy enough for them. Regardless of where its made. Fact is, for all those factors, I don't see anything that beats my '05 Ford Freestyle, which is part Swedish (Volvo initially designed the chassis), American (Ford changed the chassis design quite a bit), and German (Porsche originally designed the engine and ZF the transmission). Its assembled in Chicago by people who have health insurance, and I'm proud to help fund that. Consumer Reports says it has above average reliability (no trouble with mine, too.). Bottom line: Great car! The EPA MPG is 18 city and 25 highway in a 200" by 75" footprint vehicle. I've gotten as high as 27 MPG on very long highway trips. Not bad at all!
|
|
|
Replying to: coldcranker (Dec 05, 2008 9:01 am) Though that might mean some bargains can be had. |
|
|
I am looking for compact SUV and the target is either RDX or RAV4 V6 (Sport or Limited one). RDX has better outlook and great interior design especially with TECH package, it has everything I want (leather seat, bluetooth, NV) but I am worry about the noisy, gas millage, turbo issue and soft suspension (felt all the bumps) that other people mentioned. I know RAV4 is reliable and fuel economy but it really looks too simple. After check with several dealers, I can get 08 RDX TECH and 09 RAV4 V6 4x4 with very similar pricing (only 2K difference) if add some options on RAV4 such as leather seat, bluetooth, & smartkey. Please let me know which car will be the good choice? At the beginning, I really want to pick RDX since there is only 2K difference between Acura (higher class) & Toyota, but I don't want to have a trouble car after several years. Please let me know your comments. Thanks a lot. BTW, I am surprise that Toyota didn't drop their pricing a lot while the economy is so bad, especially in SF bay area. The 09 RAV4 SE V6 4x4 (w/leather seat, bluetooth, & smartkey) still need $28K + tax & fees.
|
|
|
|
|
Replying to: 313 (Dec 07, 2008 3:26 am)
|
|
A reporter from a national newspaper would like to speak with consumers who have been frustrated by some manufacturers’ tendency to place safety related vehicle options into expensive packages. Have you ever wanted to equip a vehicle with specific safety features that required the purchase of an entire package? If so, please respond to jwahl edmunds.com with your daytime contact information no later than Friday, December 12.
|
|
|
Replying to: coldcranker (Dec 07, 2008 8:38 am)
|
|
|
|
|
Replying to: volkov (Dec 09, 2008 4:57 pm)
|
|
|
Replying to: coldcranker (Dec 13, 2008 9:21 pm) I remember a couple decades ago when Turbos became all the rage. You could theoretically get more power from a smaller more efficient engine. But the quoted high power only comes in a narrow range at the highest RPM, so you just just get a tiny kick before shifting down again. The hot compressed air also meant less compression and less efficiency, as mentioned. Add to that the turbo lag in spining up and down, and turbos again became history, as they should have been. Since then, several things have changed. Dual gate turbines allow them to spin up and stay at speed once you get off idle, over 1000 RPM. Better air coolers mean you can keep some of the compression. But these advances still wasn't enough to make them worth considering. But the recent discovery of combining the turbo with the direct fuel injection into the cylinder (not the air stream), made a magic synergy (that Ford calls EcoBoost). First, through direct gas injection, you can boost or cut off the gas and power instantly without waiting for the turbine to change speed, giving fast throttle response. Next, the direct gas injection cools the air mixture as it expands, allowing good compression even with use of standard 87 octane gas. Finally, the torque curve is nearly flat over all RPM, unlike previous turbos that just had the torque spike at high RPM. So this EcoBoost technolgy gives an even FLATTER torque curve than normal gas engines. This means you'll get pushed back into your seat from the instant you hit the pedal. Also, your acceleration times will be better because the power is more even across all RPM as you accelerate. EcoBoost means you can get 3.5 liter V-6 power out of a much smaller I-4 engine, simultaneous with up to 25% or more better fuel economy (like over 30 MPG instead of 24 MPG on my big Taurus X crossover.) Furthermore, EcoBoost will feel even racier with more uniform torque, and be very responsive. It's a fantastic engineering combination that can't get to the market fast enough, IMO. More on EcoBoost here
|
|
|
|
|
Replying to: larryqw (Dec 13, 2008 10:07 pm) I think you have to go that direction based on the current evidence we have with the GM and Mazda direct injection turbo 4 cylinders out there now. For example, the Mazda CX-7 has an Ecoboost-style engine right now and doesn't get very good fuel economy at all. In comparison, my 4,000 lb Freestyle with a low-internal-friction small smoothe V6 (10.1:1 compression ratio), making 205 HP gets better fuel economy than the small, lighter Mazda CX-7 with its Ecoboost-like 4-banger engine. The proof is in the pudding. |
|
New? Join Now!
Forum Tools
Search Forums
Browse by Vehicle
2010 GMC Acadia
2010 Mitsubishi Outlander
2010 Subaru Forester
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
