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 GM News, New Models and Market Share
8664 messages, Last post on Dec 07, 2009 at 8:35 PM
You are in the Automotive News & Views Forum. Your Hosts are steve_ & claires
|
is that they're not always good for hauling tall items, or items that have to be carried upright. For instance, I had to buy a new dryer a few months ago, and I doubt that it would have fit in any station wagon. Maybe something with a tall roof, like a Subaru Forrester, but probably not any traditional station wagon since maybe a 1957 Chevy/Pontiac. Sort of a moot point though, because every place I went to when I was dryer shopping didn't have any in stock. They only took orders, and then you had to have it delivered.  Also, unless you go FWD, I don't think most station wagons have a 3rd row seat, once you get to anything smaller than a downsized Caprice/Crown Vic. Now the old pre-downsized intermediates had third row seats, but most of them were actually BIGGER than the downsized Ford/GM cars! Cars like the 1976 Volare, 1978 Fairmont, 1978 Malibu, and even the 2005 Magnum, none of 'em have a 3rd row seat. Something like a Taurus or Celebirty wagon would, though. And I guess some RWD cars with an independent rear suspension might have a 3rd row seat, since they can get the gas tank under the back seat, rather than behind the axle.
|
|
|
Replying to: tomcatt630 (Jul 01, 2009 8:09 am)
|
|
|
Replying to: fezo (Jul 01, 2009 8:14 am) |
|
|
Replying to: andre1969 (Jul 01, 2009 9:50 am)
|
|
|
Replying to: lemko (Jul 01, 2009 10:54 am) As far as wagons go, I liked that 1984-ish Parisienne Safari we saw at Carlisle...but not at the $4995 price tag! |
|
|
Replying to: lemko (Jul 01, 2009 10:54 am) Of course for early SUV types there was this -  Jeep wagoneer |
|
|
Replying to: andre1969 (Jun 30, 2009 8:38 am) The other day I was towing our boat down to the lake where we keep it with the Expedition. It's about a 60 mile one way drive down lots of two lane country road. Not once, not twice, but three time I had to pass excessively slow drivers going between 40-50 on a rural, flat, and straight country road with a 55 mph speed limit. You'll never guess what the 3 cars where.... Well maybe, the first was a Park Ave, the second was a Lucerne, and the 3rd believe it or not was a Lacrosse. I was laughing to myself thinking about the debate on these forums regarding Buick's reputation, and also about what were the odds of my passing 3 Buick's in a row all within an hour. |
|
|
Replying to: cadillacmike (Jul 01, 2009 9:39 am) You may have no problems with your CTS so far, but a lot of others somewhat disagree with you. No it's not that bad, and I agree that CTS is pretty reliable for a GM car, but Buick's LaCrosse has been far more reliable. Plus, LaCrosse's fit-finish is better than that of the CTS' (or any Cadillac I've seen for that matter) CTS is good, but an additional quality improvement can make it great. If you can add for one more step towards prefection, why not???? They should learn from the old management's mistakes.
|
|
|
|
|
Replying to: tomcatt630 (Jun 24, 2009 7:31 am) Kind of interesting, isn't it, to imagine where GM could be today with Buick if they hadn't thrown away tons of resources rebuilding Saturn only to have no-one "rediscover" the brand? Will the new GM continue these mistakes of the past? Some indications are that they will. Defend Buick fiercely if you will, but 4 brands is more than GM can properly handle, or sell given the market share it will ultimately have. |
|
You are here:
Forums
Automotive News & Views GM News, New Models and Market Share
New? Join Now!
Forum Tools
Search Forums
Browse by Vehicle
Browse by Board
Browse by Topic
Today's Chats
