Why did you buy your SUV?
![Foto del perfil de Dover, Robert [RICH2:2I53:EXCH]](https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/a/default-user=s40-c)
Dover, Robert [RICH2:2I53:EXCH]
gather opinions from various owners on why they purchased one specific
brand over another.
Any/all comments welcome. Email to address below is preferred.
--
+--------------------------------------+----------------------------+
| Bob Dover (do...@nortelnetworks.com) | My opinions, nothing more. |
+--------------------------------------+----------------------------+
| "The fellow who says he'll meet you halfway usually thinks he's |
| standing on the dividing line." -Orlando A. Battista |
+--------------------------------------+----------------------------+
JaWise
>brand over another.
I currenlty have a 97 Explorer XLT. Couple reasons I purchased. Consumer
reports rates them very good for reliability. Like the design. Lots of
options (power moonroof, combo/keyless entry). Had a 93 that was very
reliable. Dont' want to buy imports.
Tracy McKibben
Price was right, size was right, trade was right, the dealer was
extremely helpful, and it just felt right. Test driving it in the
middle of a Minnesota snowstorm didn't have ANYTHING to do with it...
:-)
On Mon, 24 Jul 2000 11:50:50 -0500, "Dover, Robert [RICH2:2I53:EXCH]"
<do...@americasm01.nt.com> wrote:
>I'm going to purchase an SUV in a couple of months and am trying to
>gather opinions from various owners on why they purchased one specific
>brand over another.
>
>Any/all comments welcome. Email to address below is preferred.
>--
>
>+--------------------------------------+----------------------------+
>| Bob Dover (do...@nortelnetworks.com) | My opinions, nothing more. |
>+--------------------------------------+----------------------------+
>| "The fellow who says he'll meet you halfway usually thinks he's |
>| standing on the dividing line." -Orlando A. Battista |
>+--------------------------------------+----------------------------+
--
Tracy McKibben
tmcki...@noSPAM.mn.rr.com
--
Alexander
<do...@americasm01.nt.com> wrote:
>I'm going to purchase an SUV in a couple of months and am trying to
>gather opinions from various owners on why they purchased one specific
>brand over another.
>
I had five requirements when I bought my K2500 Suburban:
1. I wanted a vehicle that was going to last 15 to 20 years. (There
are no guarantees here so this was not the highest priority)
2. It had to carry 6 or 7 comfortably with room for cargo.
3. It had to have towing capacity to handle large trailers (Camper,
boat, etc.) without much stress.
4. It had to be able to go off-road, in snow, through water, etc.
5. It had to have the capability to convert from 'SUV mode' (family
hauling) to 'Truck mode' (4x8 sheets of plywood) quickly.
I basically had the choice of a Suburban or an Excursion.
I have family members who have had past experiences with Subs, and all
were good. My uncle has the same Sub that he had when I was a kid and
it still runs great. Once I decided I needed a truck, I bought a GMC
Sierra, but when the kids came along it wasn't practical anymore. I
wanted a vehicle that would last at least three times as long as it
took to pay it off (hence req. #1) and my experiences pointed to the
Sub.
Plus, I qualified for the GM employee discount through my wife, so
there really wasn't a question of brand once we decided to buy new.
Omer Ahmad
HUGE!!!!
Omer.
Alexander <am...@weblink.invalid.net> wrote in message
news:397c7f2e....@nntp.mindspring.com...
shavings
> I'm going to purchase an SUV in a couple of months and am trying to
> gather opinions from various owners on why they purchased one specific
> brand over another.
Got a '00 XTerra... It looks good around my wife.
(Or is it that she looks good in it?-)
But seriously, of all the small/mid sized SUV's it just seemed like the
best one for us.. She test drove a lot of them and just liked the feel
of the XTerra (especially the tight turning radius) the best. I agreed
so it came home with us...
The "Runner Up" was the Subaru Forester. Which is not that bad, but we
sometimes get deep snow up here in NH, and the added clearence might be
helpfull. Also there is this stream we need to cross on our property in
VT to get to the campsite that was too deep for the Forester to
cross. The XTerra has just enough clearence to keep our feet dry unless
the water is really high in the springtime. (which is also Black-Fly
season, so we wouldn't be camping anyway ;-)
--
John Gunterman ..... http://www.shavings.net
Warped URL of the month:
http://www.peta-online.org/feat/survive/index.html
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Ron Miller
: I'm going to purchase an SUV in a couple of months and am trying to
: gather opinions from various owners on why they purchased one specific
: brand over another.
1984 Jeep Cherokee.
Best engineered drivetrain and suspension for offroading. The Ford
and Chevy competitors had too much fragile stuff hanging underneath
indicating to me they weren't very serious about 4WD.
I'd go back and buy another if something happened to this one.
Was 'wheeling just yesterday and enjoying the trip to the secret
fishing hole :-)
Ron
Eugene D.
actually the my mummer will out do ur little jeep....
: 1984 Jeep Cherokee.
Eugene D.
"Eugene D." <REMOV...@mediaone.netREMOVEANTISPAM> wrote in message
news:sj1f5.26354$LE.1...@typhoon.we.rr.com...
: no
:
Mike Romain
go camping and off road with. We like to go till the road ends and see
how much farther we can get up in Northern Canada.
It came time to retire our Volvo wagon and my wife wanted another Jeep
so we got a Cherokee.
Our needs: 6'2" 200 lb kid, 150 lb mutt and gear for trips as well as
the 4x4 for our Canadian winters.
Cherokee works nice as well it is a very competent off road machine for
the camping.
My $0.02,
Mike
"Dover, Robert [RICH2:2I53:EXCH]" wrote:
>
> I'm going to purchase an SUV in a couple of months and am trying to
> gather opinions from various owners on why they purchased one specific
> brand over another.
>
Ron Miller
: i meant Hummer
: "Eugene D." <REMOV...@mediaone.netREMOVEANTISPAM> wrote in message
: news:sj1f5.26354$LE.1...@typhoon.we.rr.com...
: : no
: : actually the my mummer will out do ur little jeep....
: :
And my Unimog will outdo your hummer/mummer/bummer.
But I doubt that was the question.
In 1984, there were no Hummers offered for civilian sale.
I doubt the original poster was considering the Hummer.
Ron
'84 Cherokee
'64 Unimog
Chris Phillipo
> I'm a 25 year
> old unmarried male... there was no way in Hades I was going to be buy a
> stinking minivan.
If only I could fit that on a bumpersticker for my 4 runner.
--
__________________________________
Please remove "X" from email address to reply.
Four Weis
Nate Edel wrote:
> In rec.autos.driving Dover, Robert [RICH2:2I53:EXCH] <do...@americasm01.nt.com> wrote:
> % I'm going to purchase an SUV in a couple of months and am trying to
> % gather opinions from various owners on why they purchased one specific
> % brand over another.
>
> I've got a 2000 Dodge Durango 4x2. I needed a vehicle which could haul a
> fair amount of rack mount equipment, ideally including a full-length rack,
> in a price range I considered reasonable (around $25, although I ended up
> spending 28k). I looked at the Durango, Explorer, Blazer, Tahoe,
> Expedition, 4Runner and Pathfinder.
>
> I liked the Durango best because it had better power and a longer usable
> cargo bed than any of the other "compact" models (especially the Japanese
> ones although the new Pathfinder might be better on the power part). Only
> the Blazer had better pricing, and it was both the smallest in terms of
> usable space, and I was unimpressed with the interior layout and quality.
> (Not that the Dodge is great). I preferred both the Expedition and Tahoe on
> size, and the Expedition on interior quality, but I couldn't find either at
> a price I could stand.
>
> Yeah, I'm well aware one of the larger minivans or a full-size van would
> have been a more practical choice for the work purpose,
Please correct me if I am wrong, but aren't the full-size work vans, nothing more than a
different body on a truck frame? I believe you can get the same engines and four-wheel
drive transmission in a full-size van that comes in the pick-ups and bigger suvs. These
may not be inexpensive, but they would make a great start for a camper.
> but having 2
> vehicles have not been possible logistically (I'm looking for a new place to
> live where they will be) so a purely work vehicle is out and I'm a 25 year
Eduardo Goldstein
huge, PROMISE!" hehe
great sticker
"Chris Phillipo" <Xcphi...@ns.sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:397CC84B...@ns.sympatico.ca...
> >
> > I'm a 25 year
> > old unmarried male... there was no way in Hades I was going to be buy a
> > stinking minivan.
>
Natural Born Cynic
back
here with specific questions...instead of trying to get others to do your
legwork for ya'
Dover, Robert [RICH2:2I53:EXCH] wrote in message
<397C73EA...@americasm01.nt.com>...
>I'm going to purchase an SUV in a couple of months and am trying to
>gather opinions from various owners on why they purchased one specific
Philip
Eugene D. wrote in message <3n1f5.26356$LE.1...@typhoon.we.rr.com>...
Philip
>Until then, I think my next vehicle, bumper may be something like a Ford
F150
>with the full crew cab and the extra-short bed..... the aversion to bumper
>height may be outweighed by a series of unhappy experiences with the GM
>product...
>-----------------------
>Pete Cresswell
na
rear-end or T-bone people?
I've always driven vehicles who's bumpers are taller and at least twice the
weight than the other vehicle. I have never had a problem with anyone
getting hurt in an accident that is my fault. (e.g. I T-boned them or
rear-ended them)
Now, I have been rear-ended several times because the domba$$ in question
was following too close and right under my trailer hitch they go.
Fortunately no one has been seriously hurt from that but as far as I am
concerned that is their problem not mine. That's the penalty for
tailgating, eventually everyone pays the price.
ALL (well some junkers are acceptions. <g>) vehicles are safe, it all
depends on the ability of the driver behind the wheel.
But that is just my opinion, I am sure it differs from everyone elses.
Travis
"(Pete Cresswell)" <4...@fatbelly.com> wrote in message
news:0sjpnscfrbrpkkatl...@4ax.com...
> COMFORT: Chrysler's TownCar was looking good but I was tired of having to
go
> into a full squat to enter/exit a vehicle. Also, since headlight
> brightness/height seems to have escaleted into some sort of arms race and
I
> think martyrdom is highly overrated....I decided to go with something that
put
> the driver's eyes at a more survivable height.
>
> Since then, I have also come to appreciate sitting in a relatively-normal
> posture when driving and have no intention of ever going back.
>
>
> SAFETY: I can tell you for sure that there is at least one 6' 5" dummy in
the
> world, but as far as I know, there aren't any 6'5" *crash* dummies and
lacking
> experimental evidence I have to believe that at least some space between
one's
> head and the vehicle's roof is needed to avoid spinal cord injury in even
a
> relatively-minor crash.
>
>
> CARRYING CAPACITY: In spite of my mechanics warning that I'd get tired of
the
> $800 visits just to keep it running and the mockery of my windsurfing buds
for
> not getting a sand-capable vehicle, I was close to buying a Ford
Windstar -
> pretty good crash rating, sufficient headroom, tolerable driver posture,
plenty
> of storage room inside... But upon renting one to try out for a weekend
I
> discovered the roof racks were made out of plastic...So I got all in a
snit and
> bought a Chevy Suburban. Maybe I should have gone for the WindStar and
some
> judicious roofrack drilling/bolting....but that's water over the dam at
this
> point.
>
> I considered the Expedition, but only briefly. The bumpers seemed to me
to be
> gratiously and dangerously high.....I'm was looking for function, not
style.
>
> One thing I didn't want was to kill or maim somebody just because my
bumper rode
> over the reinforced area in their door. I checked the 'burb's bumper
height
> against the bumper heights of 25 cars in a local parking area and it
overlapped
> all but four (which were a 'vette and three other similarly suicidal
> vehicles...)
>
>
> My personal prediction is that Chrysler is going to sell more PT cruisers
than
> even in anybodys's wildest dreams. I'm hoping that other makers will
catch on
> and maybe even scale the design up about 30%. If/when that happens, I
might go
> for one of those....
James Henry
Look at Consumer Reports. to help you make your decision.
Also, take the rising gas prices into consideration.
Biased opinion:
I have had my fair share of Fords and I really can't say that I like them.
After about 5-10 years, most of them develop a leak in the rear main seal
(both my 1986 ford Escort, and my step dad's 86 F150, both horrid vehicles).
Also, I think most Fords made in the last 10 years have big problems with
the A/C system's leaking. an Uncle of mine had a Ford Exploder Eddie Bauer
edition (98) and was backing down a highway off ramp (LONG story) when the
tranny siezed, and the Exploder didn';t go anywhere after that. These
experiences have turned me off totally to Fords.
When I bought my 76 FJ40 Land Cruiser (ok, its not really an SUV but I
willstill share), These are the things I took into condieration:
#1) price: I only had about $3500 to spend, and I wanted something with a
short wheel base and a removable top.
#2) reliability. Too many expereinces with broken Fords and Jeeps.
#3) Ease of mainanence. I do all my mechanical work myself after paying Pep
boys too much money to replace rear main seals every 6 months. (strangly
enough, I haven't had to replace a main seal since). The stock land crusier
was designed to be maintained, which I can't say for another manufacturer
*cough*Ford*cough*. Older GMC/Chevy's are good in that respect too (don't
know too much about the newer ones)
#4) Coolness factor. I thought the TLC was cooler than any other offering
in my price range.
EVERYbody (it seems) owns a Jeep. I wanted something a little different.
#5) Get what YOU want. If you get talked into something that your really
don't like, no matter what the reliability rating is, you probably won;t be
happy with it.
#6) Offroad prowess from a stock vehicle. Stock Jeeps are crap for any
serious offroading. Most vehicles need to be modified for any serious
offroad use. Not the Cruiser.
I hope this helps. Again, these are all my opinions, and, with all opinions
should be taken with a grain of salt.
Have a nice 24th weekend (if you live in Utah) if not, happy SUV hunting.
-James H.
Dover, Robert [RICH2:2I53:EXCH] <do...@americasm01.nt.com> wrote in message
news:397C73EA...@americasm01.nt.com...
(Pete Cresswell)
Myk
>Eugene D. (REMOV...@mediaone.netREMOVEANTISPAM) wrote:
>: i meant Hummer
>: "Eugene D." <REMOV...@mediaone.netREMOVEANTISPAM> wrote in message
>: news:sj1f5.26354$LE.1...@typhoon.we.rr.com...
>: : no
>: : actually the my mummer will out do ur little jeep....
There is a place where my stock ZJ outdid the Hummer while in the
woods. It just doesn't fit anywhere! The slowest of the group of 7
vehicles was the Hummer and quite frankly we got tired of waiting for
it to catch up.
_____________________________________________
The Modern Miranda
"You have the right to remain silent
"You have the right to an attorney
"You have the right to be tried by the media...
Myk
<do...@americasm01.nt.com> wrote:
>I'm going to purchase an SUV in a couple of months and am trying to
>gather opinions from various owners on why they purchased one specific
>brand over another.
I needed a vehicle that would haul 4 people and plenty of camping gear
in some of the oddest terrain possible. It would have to be powerful
enough to haul a mid-sized boat through mountain passes with no
problems and yank them up and down slippery inclines. It would have to
suit deep snow for ski duty as well as just exploring the strangest
plcaes in the snow. it had to be comfortable enough for repeated cross
country trips, haul several complete sets of scuba gear, other various
hobby and project related stuff and be reasonably priced. The only
one at the time that fit that bill was the (then brand new) Grand
Cherokee V8. I still have it 7.5 years later. Alas, its the quality
(or complete lack of it) that makes me want to scream. I only have
71,000 miles on it and it seems like everything but the body shell and
the engine block has been replaced 3 times already. The only thing I
*ever* use it for anymore is towing or hauling and even then only when
I have to.
Jerry Bransford
time at this location (Los Coyotes Indian Reservation in SoCalif), I saw
a near-new Hummer out on the trail. He was effectively cut off to about
half the terrain because he was so wide and couldn't fit into the most
popular trails. Not only that but I was REALLY surprised by his limited
articulation. His tires lifted off compltely on barely off-camber
terrain... my personal observations. If you ask me, the Humvee may be a
great urban assault vehicle but it's sure not a good all-around off-road
vehicle when the terrain gets tight.
Jerry
Myk wrote:
>
> On 24 Jul 2000 20:34:37 GMT, r...@fc.hp.com (Ron Miller) wrote:
>
> >Eugene D. (REMOV...@mediaone.netREMOVEANTISPAM) wrote:
> >: i meant Hummer
> >: "Eugene D." <REMOV...@mediaone.netREMOVEANTISPAM> wrote in message
> >: news:sj1f5.26354$LE.1...@typhoon.we.rr.com...
> >: : no
> >: : actually the my mummer will out do ur little jeep....
>
> There is a place where my stock ZJ outdid the Hummer while in the
> woods. It just doesn't fit anywhere! The slowest of the group of 7
> vehicles was the Hummer and quite frankly we got tired of waiting for
> it to catch up.
>
> _____________________________________________
> The Modern Miranda
> "You have the right to remain silent
> "You have the right to an attorney
> "You have the right to be tried by the media...
--
Jerry Bransford
PP-ASEL KC6TAY
The Zen Hotdog... make me one with everything!
Geezer Jeep: http://www.jjournal.net/jeep/gallery/JBransfordsTJ/
PY
of it's class.
2-Because it's my wife's vehicle and she is a small person and it gives her
a better view of the road.
3-Because it can tow my boat, not like the car based SUVs.
4-Most importantly IT RIDES 10 BILLION TIMES BETTER THAN THAT DAMN ISUZU
AMIGO I HAD BEFORE IT!!!!!!!!!!!
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----
mercogliano
Perhaps it is something to consider and wait for. I can't tell you
anything about this vehicle other than the fact that I saw it at a movie
studio where they were filming commercials. The vehicle was the size of
a Landcruiser but I can't tell more than that, it was all covered up and
I was only able to see the back. Maybe somebody in the newsgroup can
tell you something about its specs and price.
Jerry Bransford
Cruiser?
Jerry
--
Charlie Brown
>For the Excursion, do you need a different class liscence? The thing is
>HUGE!!!!
>
>Omer.
It's no bigger than the F-250 SD it's built from.
Heavier, but not bigger to any real extent.
Bryan Foust
than spout out crap like this. Believe me, there are MUCH better
alternatives for wheeling than a Hummer - at a FRACTION of the cost. Enjoy
being known as an idiot with more money than brains. I'll keep my "cheapo"
Samurai and get into places that a Hummer driver can only wish to get into.
Bryan
--
1976 AMC Hornet (project)
1983 Volkswagen Rabbit 1.6 L turbodiesel
1988.5 Suzuki Samurai Hardtop
1999 Dodge Ram 2500 Cummins 24 Valve Turbodiesel
"Eugene D." <REMOV...@mediaone.netREMOVEANTISPAM> wrote in message
news:sj1f5.26354$LE.1...@typhoon.we.rr.com...
> no
> actually the my mummer will out do ur little jeep....
>
>
Mikel Ezcurra
with far better off-road capabilities :-P
Mikel
1978 Jeep Cherokee Chief 360/T-18A/D20/4.56
Chris Phillipo
But more dangerous is the fact that you don't see too many soccer moms
driving the F-250 SD.
SteveJ
on a honda Newsgroup where most people don't want nor like
SUV's taking up space on the roadways...You cant see around
them, get terrible gas mileage and yet people complain
about the cost of gas, and they are too impractical and
expensive to maintain for me and many others. Now if you
have 6 children, live on 6 acres of muddy 60 degree angle
driveways or pull a trailer then you really need one of
these but otherwise you must convince the general
population why you need an SUV. My VW Golf or Honda Civic
can go just about anywhere you will be driving with your
SUV (except of course rocky stream beds and forging 2 foot
deep rivers but how many of those are in Downtown
Baltimore. I would bet that the best time to buy an SUV
will be in a couple years when we go through a gas crunch
or very high gas price economy when everyone sells the
things for so cheap that nobody will want one. Anyway just
my .02$ on why I DID NOT buy an SUV....
Steve J
* Sent from AltaVista http://www.altavista.com Where you can also find related Web Pages, Images, Audios, Videos, News, and Shopping. Smart is Beautiful
Lloyd R. Parker
: I think Toyota will be selling a new SUV pretty soon, the Sequoia.
: Perhaps it is something to consider and wait for. I can't tell you
: anything about this vehicle other than the fact that I saw it at a movie
: studio where they were filming commercials. The vehicle was the size of
: a Landcruiser but I can't tell more than that, it was all covered up and
: I was only able to see the back. Maybe somebody in the newsgroup can
: tell you something about its specs and price.
It's based on their full-sized pickup. Sequoia:Tundra::Tahoe:Silverado
Lloyd R. Parker
: Price-wise, isn't it supposed to fall in-between the 4Runner and Land
: Cruiser?
Yes, but Toyota is also getting a version of the Lexus RX300, so they'll
have 4 SUVs under the Toyota name.
Steve Garrotto
chassis. I would put its size at ever-so-slightly-smaller than a Yukon
or Tahoe. So it is basically a 4Runner supersized as the Expedition is
a supersized Explorer.
SLG
"Sure I'll take that 4Runner"
"Would you like to supersize that order?"
"Sure, why not? It is only $.39 right?"
Jerry Bransford <jer...@home.com> wrote:
>Price-wise, isn't it supposed to fall in-between the 4Runner and Land
>Cruiser?
>
>Jerry
>
>mercogliano wrote:
>>
>> I think Toyota will be selling a new SUV pretty soon, the Sequoia.
>> Perhaps it is something to consider and wait for. I can't tell you
>> anything about this vehicle other than the fact that I saw it at a movie
>> studio where they were filming commercials. The vehicle was the size of
>> a Landcruiser but I can't tell more than that, it was all covered up and
>> I was only able to see the back. Maybe somebody in the newsgroup can
>> tell you something about its specs and price.
>
>--
>Jerry Bransford
>PP-ASEL KC6TAY
>The Zen Hotdog... make me one with everything!
>Geezer Jeep: http://www.jjournal.net/jeep/gallery/JBransfordsTJ/
(All spelling errors are intentional and are there to show new
and improved ways of spelling old words. Grammatical errors are
due to too many English classes/teachers)
Charlie Brown
<Xcphi...@ns.sympatico.ca> wrote:
>Charlie Brown wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 24 Jul 2000 14:12:27 -0400, "Omer Ahmad" <om...@cae.ca> wrote:
>>
>> >For the Excursion, do you need a different class liscence? The thing is
>> >HUGE!!!!
>> >
>> >Omer.
>>
>> It's no bigger than the F-250 SD it's built from.
>> Heavier, but not bigger to any real extent.
>
>But more dangerous is the fact that you don't see too many soccer moms
>driving the F-250 SD.
Maybe I'm having a Brain Cloud day, but why would the fact that soccer
moms don't drive the F-250 make it dangerous?
Charlie Brown
<sjohnsto...@htginsurance.com.invalid> wrote:
>I don't know, Why did you buy your SUV or put this question
>on a honda Newsgroup where most people don't want nor like
>SUV's taking up space on the roadways...
Yet, Honda sells a SUV...
>You cant see around
>them, get terrible gas mileage and yet people complain
>about the cost of gas, and they are too impractical and
>expensive to maintain for me and many others.
You can say the same in spades for commercial trucks, yet I don't see
any concerted effort to ban them on these grounds...
> Now if you
>have 6 children, live on 6 acres of muddy 60 degree angle
>driveways or pull a trailer then you really need one of
>these but otherwise you must convince the general
>population why you need an SUV.
Why? The general population's approval of my vehicle purchase is
neither needed nor wanted. I buy what *I* want to buy, and no one has
any right to attempt to alter my buying decision.
>My VW Golf or Honda Civic
>can go just about anywhere you will be driving with your
>SUV (except of course rocky stream beds and forging 2 foot
>deep rivers but how many of those are in Downtown
>Baltimore. I would bet that the best time to buy an SUV
>will be in a couple years when we go through a gas crunch
>or very high gas price economy when everyone sells the
>things for so cheap that nobody will want one. Anyway just
>my .02$ on why I DID NOT buy an SUV....
>Steve J
SO you didn't buy an SUV because...
You were afraid of what others would say.
You didn't need one.
You didn't want one.
The last two are valid reasons, IMO. The first reason is not.
son
I have a 93 and i heard that the transmission will leak, is that true
happy with the truck!!!!
* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
The Hawk
go
Damn...I must have slept through the years when Chrysler made a Town Car.
I'd like to talk to all the 4x4 poseurs in a couple of years.
The Hawk
StealthJT
1)I liked the fact that I could carry lots of stuff with them.
2)I could tow a camper and be able to see out the rear view over
the camper.
3)The four wheel drive aspect for rain and snow.
4)Feeling safer, my last car was a Mustang and there was nothing
behind you should some idiot hit you from behind.
As for people who don't like them? Too darn bad. It was my own
choice to buy one, not yours! As for the higher cost of gas? It
is all relative, if it is twice as much for me, it's twice as
much for everyone else too. I have a right to complain just like
the 50mpg car owners.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Got questions? Get answers over the phone at Keen.com.
Up to 100 minutes free!
http://www.keen.com
Steve Lacker
shavings wrote:
> > I'm going to purchase an SUV in a couple of months and am trying to
> > gather opinions from various owners on why they purchased one specific
> > brand over another.
Don't own one personally, but last year my parents needed a new vehicle,
and wound up getting an SUV (Dodge Durango 2wd, 5.9L). I helped them do
their shopping around, so I got a good glimpse into the SUV market last
year.
Reasons:
- They wanted a vehicle that could carry 7 people
- They wanted a BULLETPROOF drivetrain, which rules out front-wheel drive
and therefore most minivans.
- They occasionally tow a 2000# trailer, which is theoretically within the
capability of a minvan, but would probably shorten the life of the FWD
drivetrain even further.
- They chose the Durango over others because of the reputation of the 318
(5.2L) and 360 (5.9L) engines. Having owned half a dozen Chrysler
smallblock v8s over the years, they knew that it would *never* cause a hint
of trouble, even if it sees 250,000 miles. Nor will the rear axle. Nor
should the transmission (just a 4-speed version of the old A-727 automatic,
which was the toughest auto trans on the market for 30 years).
In short, it was RELIABILITY, RELIABILITY, RELIABILITY. You can't come
anywhere close to the ruggedness of a solid-axle, rear-drive, V8 vehicle,
and the only way to get that package nowdays is a Ford Crown Victoria, or
an SUV.
-- Stephen G. Lacker
sglacker at texas dot net
"Turn off your blinding fog lights, hang up, and DRIVE!"
Kenny_B
1) I enjoy spending extra money on insurance
2) I enjoy spending extra money on car washes for oversized vehicles
3) I enjoy spending extra money extra big tires
4) I enjoy spending extra money to repave my driveway because of the extra
big tires
5) I enjoy spending extra money to remove the free running hubs inorder to
turn my rotors
6) I enjoy spending extra money for oil changes to 2 differentials and 1
transfer case
...I can go on ...
Dover, Robert [RICH2:2I53:EXCH] <do...@americasm01.nt.com> wrote in message
news:397C73EA...@americasm01.nt.com...
> I'm going to purchase an SUV in a couple of months and am trying to
> gather opinions from various owners on why they purchased one specific
> brand over another.
>
Tracy McKibben
wrote:
>I bought my SUV because:
>
>1) I enjoy spending extra money on insurance
Insurance for my 2000 Explorer is less than it was on my 94 Taurus.
Same coverage, same carrier, I just dropped one vehicle and added the
other.
>2) I enjoy spending extra money on car washes for oversized vehicles
I hand-wash mine, in my yard under a big shade tree. Costs nothing,
looks better, and is relaxing.
>3) I enjoy spending extra money extra big tires
The Michelin X1's that were on my Taurus, the only car tire I'll buy,
cost me $105 each. Michelin's All-Terrain tire for my Explorer costs
approximately $125 each. Not enough of a difference to even mention.
>4) I enjoy spending extra money to repave my driveway because of the extra
>big tires
I think you're grasping a little with this one, aren't you?
>5) I enjoy spending extra money to remove the free running hubs inorder to
>turn my rotors
Can't comment on this one, haven't run into this yet...
>6) I enjoy spending extra money for oil changes to 2 differentials and 1
>transfer case
I do my own oil changes and maintenance, and I get paid the same as I
did on the Taurus - nothing...
>...I can go on ...
I'm sure you can, so can I...
--
Tracy McKibben
tmcki...@noSPAM.mn.rr.com
--
SteveJ
for reality but for a good clean laugh
Http://poseur.4x4.org/
STeve J
Lou Anschuetz
: I bought my SUV because:
: 1) I enjoy spending extra money on insurance
: 2) I enjoy spending extra money on car washes for oversized vehicles
: 3) I enjoy spending extra money extra big tires
: 4) I enjoy spending extra money to repave my driveway because of the extra
: big tires
: 5) I enjoy spending extra money to remove the free running hubs inorder to
: turn my rotors
: 6) I enjoy spending extra money for oil changes to 2 differentials and 1
: transfer case
: ...I can go on ...
: Dover, Robert [RICH2:2I53:EXCH] <do...@americasm01.nt.com> wrote in message
: news:397C73EA...@americasm01.nt.com...
: > I'm going to purchase an SUV in a couple of months and am trying to
: > gather opinions from various owners on why they purchased one specific
: > brand over another.
: >
: > Any/all comments welcome. Email to address below is preferred.
: > --
Hmmm, either trolling or misinformed.
Been driving an SUV for 11 years now (traded the first one
in at 8 years, 100K miles for 75% of cost new - which was the
optimum point on the cost curve. There was nothing wrong with
it).
Insurance is the same as most cars on my Jeep Grand Cherokee.
Actually a good bit less than my wife's previous LHS.
I don't pay extra for car washes - maybe I'm going to the wrong
places :)
Tires are about $50 each for good ones (GoodYear typically) -
they were $200 or so each for the LHS.
Never repaved a driveway everso wouldn't know about that one.
Not had many rotor turnings (none on previous Cherokee) just
one on Grand Cherokee, but the rotors were replaced on a recall - sigh.
About once every 3 years I replace the gear oil. I think it amounts
to $40 or so. Takes about 8 minutes at a Jiffy Lube.
As to why I drive one (the serious stuff): at the time I bought my
first one there were few AWD vehicles about other than Audi, which
I couldn't afford. Living in the rusting NorthEast I wanted
something that would last for a long time on crummy roads that
aren't often treated/plowed in the winter. That I got, and with
few of the problems suggested. I also get about 22MPG on the highway,
19 around town. That is about the same as most american cars I've
owned and only a little worse than our subaru.
As to full size SUVs, I think that the quality is not as high
as it was previously, at least in the Jeep line. My suspicion is
that the lease market is causing auto makers, at least in the
US, to only be concerned about the first 3 years. Just walking
around the GC I see more rust prone areas under the vehicle
at 30K than I did on the previous Cherokee at 100K. This, IMHO,
is true of all current american cars, so check this out
thoroughly.
If you aren't an idiot, and you aren't buying an SUV to own the
biggest damn thing on the road, they have the potential to be
like most trucks and last for a long time. If you live in an
area with bad weather, and *KNOW WHAT YOU ARE DOING*, they
can get you out of bad situations - they can also get you into
worse ones. If you are out to intimidate folks - they you
shouldn't be driving period.
--
Lou Anschuetz, l...@ece.cmu.edu
Network Manager, ECE, Carnegie Mellon University
Lloyd R. Parker
:
:
: shavings wrote:
:
: > > gather opinions from various owners on why they purchased one specific
: > > brand over another.
:
: and wound up getting an SUV (Dodge Durango 2wd, 5.9L). I helped them do
: their shopping around, so I got a good glimpse into the SUV market last
: year.
:
: Reasons:
: - They wanted a vehicle that could carry 7 people
Taurus wagon, Mercedes E320 wagon, minivans...
: - They wanted a BULLETPROOF drivetrain, which rules out front-wheel drive
: and therefore most minivans.
SUVs have the worst reliability records of any vehicles in CR. Minivans
fare much better.
: - They occasionally tow a 2000# trailer, which is theoretically within the
: capability of a minvan, but would probably shorten the life of the FWD
: drivetrain even further.
: - They chose the Durango over others because of the reputation of the 318
: (5.2L) and 360 (5.9L) engines. Having owned half a dozen Chrysler
: smallblock v8s over the years, they knew that it would *never* cause a hint
: of trouble, even if it sees 250,000 miles. Nor will the rear axle. Nor
: should the transmission (just a 4-speed version of the old A-727 automatic,
: which was the toughest auto trans on the market for 30 years).
No hint of trouble? Better check Consumer Reports; the current owners are
doing more than "hinting" of trouble.
:
: In short, it was RELIABILITY, RELIABILITY, RELIABILITY. You can't come
: anywhere close to the ruggedness of a solid-axle, rear-drive, V8 vehicle,
: and the only way to get that package nowdays is a Ford Crown Victoria, or
: an SUV.
Sorry, false, false, false. Ruggedness is one thing SUVs may have, but
reliability is not one attribute. Other than the expected reliability of
Toyota and Lexus SUVs, expecting an SUV to be reliable is like expecting
Ronald Reagan to remember where he left his hat.
The Hawk
news:397DD5A5...@spam.thanks...
> shavings wrote:
> > > I'm going to purchase an SUV in a couple of months and am trying to
> > > gather opinions from various owners on why they purchased one specific
> > > brand over another.
>
> Don't own one personally, but last year my parents needed a new vehicle,
> and wound up getting an SUV (Dodge Durango 2wd, 5.9L). I helped them do
> their shopping around, so I got a good glimpse into the SUV market last
> year.
>
> Reasons:
> - They wanted a vehicle that could carry 7 people
Minivans, station wagons(gasp)
> - They wanted a BULLETPROOF drivetrain, which rules out front-wheel drive
> and therefore most minivans.
Er...last I looked, four wheel drive meant rear wheel drive *and* front
wheel drive. A four-wheel drive vehicle has the complexity of a front wheel
driven vehicle *and* that of a rear-wheel drive vehicle. Unless, of course,
you're driving a vehicle with solid axles on *both* ends. I dont think there
are many such creatures out there anymore.
> - They occasionally tow a 2000# trailer, which is theoretically within the
> capability of a minvan, but would probably shorten the life of the FWD
> drivetrain even further.
See above...but I'd think a full-time-four-wheel-drive would have the same
problem.
> - They chose the Durango over others because of the reputation of the 318
> (5.2L) and 360 (5.9L) engines. Having owned half a dozen Chrysler
> smallblock v8s over the years, they knew that it would *never* cause a
hint
> of trouble, even if it sees 250,000 miles. Nor will the rear axle. Nor
> should the transmission (just a 4-speed version of the old A-727
automatic,
> which was the toughest auto trans on the market for 30 years).
I havent driven a chrysler for extended periods of time, but from what I
hear and see, I would dare not buy one. I'm really amazed as to how you can
extrapolate the realiability of your smallblock V-8s to the new magnum V-8s.
> In short, it was RELIABILITY, RELIABILITY, RELIABILITY. You can't come
> anywhere close to the ruggedness of a solid-axle, rear-drive, V8 vehicle,
> and the only way to get that package nowdays is a Ford Crown Victoria, or
> an SUV.
ruggedness, yes. usability, maybe. Reliability, no.
> "Turn off your blinding fog lights, hang up, and DRIVE!"
Amen to that!
The Hawk
C. E. White
>
> I bought my SUV because:
>
> 1) I enjoy spending extra money on insurance
My insurance when down when I went from a Sable to an Explorer. Didn't
change when I traded the Explorer for an Expedition.
> 2) I enjoy spending extra money on car washes for oversized vehicles
Never had this problem.
> 3) I enjoy spending extra money extra big tires
I never bought tires for my Explorer (traded at 32K miles). I have
bought one set of tires for my Expedition in 103,000 miles for a total
cost of less than $450. In 132,000 miles, I bought 4 sets of tires for
my Sable for a total cost of over $1000
> 4) I enjoy spending extra money to repave my driveway because of the extra
> big tires
Huh? You must have a really crummy driveway.
> 5) I enjoy spending extra money to remove the free running hubs inorder to
> turn my rotors
The rotors on my Expedition slide off just like the ones on my Sable
did. With the Sable I had to replace the front rotors once in 132,000
miles. I have yet to replace the ones on the Expedition at 103,000
miles. Why would you turn them at all?
> 6) I enjoy spending extra money for oil changes to 2 differentials and 1
> transfer case
Ford only recommends changing the transfer case oil every 60,000 miles.
They don't recommend changing the differential fluids at all unless the
differential has been under water. If you don't have 4WD you don't have
a transfer case. If you do have 4WD you have extra capability.
Chris Herrington
will do what you want it to do, that you will enjoy driving.
Happy Moparing.
Chris
"Dover, Robert [RICH2:2I53:EXCH]" wrote:
> I'm going to purchase an SUV in a couple of months and am trying to
> gather opinions from various owners on why they purchased one specific
> brand over another.
>
> Any/all comments welcome. Email to address below is preferred.
> --
>
Karl Fengler (HOG FVR)
news:397ddee9...@127.0.0.1...> wrote:
> >I bought my SUV because:
> >1) I enjoy spending extra money on insurance
> Insurance for my 2000 Explorer is less than it was on my 94 Taurus.
> Same coverage, same carrier, I just dropped one vehicle and added the
> other.
Hummm... something else was going on then, because just having
a newer vehicle should increase the rate some!!!
> >2) I enjoy spending extra money on car washes for oversized vehicles
I don't pay extra for my F150 Supercab, and Explorers are
smaller...
> I hand-wash mine, in my yard under a big shade tree. Costs nothing,
> looks better, and is relaxing.
Well actually you pay for the water, the soap, and probably
for the sponge and shamey... :)
> >3) I enjoy spending extra money extra big tires
> The Michelin X1's that were on my Taurus, the only car tire I'll buy,
> cost me $105 each. Michelin's All-Terrain tire for my Explorer costs
> approximately $125 each. Not enough of a difference to even mention.
A friend of mine paid about $250/tire for his Corrvette...
> >4) I enjoy spending extra money to repave my driveway because of the
extra
> >big tires
> I think you're grasping a little with this one, aren't you?
He sure is, ...but my driveway is concrete.
> >5) I enjoy spending extra money to remove the free running hubs inorder
to
> >turn my rotors
> Can't comment on this one, haven't run into this yet...
Costs about the same where I would have it done.
> >6) I enjoy spending extra money for oil changes to 2 differentials and 1
> >transfer case
> I do my own oil changes and maintenance, and I get paid the same as I
> did on the Taurus - nothing...
How often does this have to be done, every 30,000 miles or so...
no big deal!
> >...I can go on ...
> I'm sure you can, so can I...
> Tracy McKibben
I bet he can... but I thing he should just GO...
--
Karl Fengler F150-5.4 * FXDWG k_fe...@hotmail.com
!! You Have Strayed Upon The Motorway To HELL !!
(Pete Cresswell)
>Interesting concern about bumper height... Do you have a tendancy to
>rear-end or T-bone people?
>
>I've always driven vehicles who's bumpers are taller and at least twice the
>weight than the other vehicle. I have never had a problem with anyone
>getting hurt in an accident that is my fault. (e.g. I T-boned them or
>rear-ended them)
My accident experience is limited, I'm just guessing that if my bumper is at the
height of somebody's shoulder instead of the re-inforced area in their door the
chances of them getting injured rise sharply.
In just a little over 900,000 miles of driving, I've had three crashes:
1) I hit somebody broadside in a parking lot. He was stopped, I was going
about 1.2 mph.
2) A drunk nailed me on from the rear quarter on my motorcycle at about 50 mph.
3) Somebody rearended me when I was at a dead stop with my four-ways flashing.
Was in a beeeeeeeg car or I probably wouldn't be sitting here writing this.
My dream vehicle is probably something like a 2-axle dump truck with mouse fuzz
upholstery and a decent stereo.
But the bumper height thing is real....It's not exactly pure altruism on my
part...It's more like I know that wiping out a mother and a couple of children
when I could have done something to prevent it could screw up my mind for the
rest of my life - driver fault notwithstanding.
It's probably not PC in a group like this, but I'm all for standard bumper
height, headlight height, and headlight width. It'll never happen, but iI'd
bet the mortgage money that it would decrease deaths and serious injury and for
sure it would make nighttime driving a lot easier.
-----------------------
Pete Cresswell
th...@homenospam.com
<sjohnsto...@htginsurance.com.invalid> wrote:
>I don't know, Why did you buy your SUV or put this question
>on a honda Newsgroup where most people don't want nor like
>SUV's taking up space on the roadways...You cant see around
>them, get terrible gas mileage and yet people complain
>about the cost of gas, and they are too impractical and
>expensive to maintain for me and many others. Now if you
Ah! but for many other-others, they're practical and afforable,
especially if you're talking the CR-V.
>have 6 children, live on 6 acres of muddy 60 degree angle
>driveways or pull a trailer then you really need one of
>these but otherwise you must convince the general
>population why you need an SUV.
Uh, no, ya' don't have to convince anyone at all. All ya' have to do
is write the check. :-)
>My VW Golf or Honda Civic
>can go just about anywhere you will be driving with your
>SUV (except of course rocky stream beds and forging 2 foot
>deep rivers but how many of those are in Downtown
>Baltimore.
Well, there's one on Eastern Avenue just east of Haven, under the
bridge. :-)
I had Accords since '74 before buying a CR-V last year. I used to
bottom out visiting friends in the County, and occasionally had
surprises at the steeplechase rraces it the Spring. I don't have 60
acres of my own, but I do drive in some fields that used to be very
slow going inthe Accord. None of those situations are a consideration
in the CR-V.
>my .02$ on why I DID NOT buy an SUV....
There are other reasons to buy (the CR-V, anyway). Older people can
just sort of move sideways to sit in it, instead of sitting
down-down-down into a car and then having to be helped up-up-up out of
it. The rear seat legrom is great. I't much better than a car for
transporting pets. and you can just plain put more "stuff" in it.
And you mentioned sitting higher and seeing better... :-)
John Baltimore
Charlie Brown
You're right, a uniform bumper height would reduce costs in both human
carnage & repair costs.
However, you're also right in that it ain't gonna happen, because not
all vehicles are the same.
Headlight height is now regulated, and the lights must be within a
specific range of height.
What would also save a lot is making all non-commercial vehicles
exactly the same. However, I seriously doubt that you'd want to live
in a country that had the ability to actually do that.
Seperate traffic lanes (with a median divider) for commercial vehicles
would also save lives & $$.
The point is, there are *always* ways to reduce injuries & property
loss. The trick is, how do we actually do these things?
th...@homenospam.com
<sjohnsto...@htginsurance.com.invalid> wrote:
>Some people need them both others should look here if not
>for reality but for a good clean laugh
>Http://poseur.4x4.org/
Loved it! Thanks!
John Baltimore
Bob
snow all the time....
on the issue of bumper height, I mostly agree...
however, don't forget physics... bigger cars are
almost always safer... if you crash a Lincoln town car
into a geo metro... guess who's in more danger?
(or if you crash a Suburban or Excursion into an 18-wheeler
at 60mph)
"Charlie Brown" <cha...@juno.com> wrote in message
news:397e0b73....@news.uswest.net...
Steve Lacker
Lloyd R. Parker wrote:
>
>
> : - They wanted a BULLETPROOF drivetrain, which rules out front-wheel drive
> : and therefore most minivans.
>
> SUVs have the worst reliability records of any vehicles in CR. Minivans
> fare much better.
>
I don't give a rat's tail about CR. I have personally logged > 500,000 miles on
Chrysler smallblocks, and my family as a whole has logged close to 1 million
miles on them. One single engine (my 73 318) has 396,300 miles on it. Total
engine problems on ALL of them combined: one timing chain failure due to neglect
at 190k miles. I like my Eagle Vision, but it'll NEVER approach that kind of
reliability. As for the Durango's transmission, I've found that the old 727 was
good for roughly 200,000 miles (my '66 lasted 230,000). The most miles any of us
have put on a 4-speed (A-518) version so far is 160,000 miles on a 92 Dakota
work truck. It hasn't even had its fluid changed, and still works like a champ.
About 5 or 6 members of my local Mopar club have Ram trucks as their daily
drivers, some with 6-figure mileage, and not a single tranny or engine problem
in the lot.
Face it, Lloyd, RWD/v8/solid axle may be "primitive" but its indestructible.
The fractional handling improvement of independent rear suspension is nice, but
not usually worth the cost (the Mustang is a nice exception), and the horrible
handling of front-drive is definitely not a step in the right direction. I've
spent 1/3 the amount of maintenance money on my 73 and 66 Chrysler products
COMBINED as I've spent on the Vision TSi. Its good for a front-drive, but front
drive just can't take the pounding. If I ever buy another new vehicle at all,
it'll be a V8 powered Dodge truck or utility vehicle, or an inline-6 powered
Jeep. Or MAYBE a 300N/Charger, if they build it with rear drive and the new
Hemi.
-- Stephen G. Lacker
sglacker at texas dot net
type...@my-deja.com
auto. In the first year, 40 working days in the shop, 3 transmissions,
3 driveshafts, and 2 rear axle assemblies, 2 fuel pumps, 2 cruise
controls, 2 interior HVAC cables (did you know Chrysler 7/70 warranty
does not cover levers and cables, the assholes, although I finally won
on that one).
I will NEVER, I repeat, NEVER buy another dodge or Chrysler product
again, and probably never another Ford or GM either.
I live in St Louis and have 2 acquaintances that work at the Chrysler
plant in Fenton (where they build Rams and minivans). They both tell
me that they have to schedule to work 12 hour days in order to get 8
hours worth of work done because of continual equipment breakdowns.
Folks, it just doesn't work that way at the Toyota and Honda plants
here in the US or in Japan.
Now, happy owner of :
'2000 Toyota Sienna XLE
'1996 Toyota Tacoma 4x4 SR5 V6
'2000 Mazda Miata Black/Tan
'1998 Coleman Bayside
Chrysler really blew it with me and I'll always choose the Toyota,
Honda, Nissan or Mazda offerings (probably roughly in that order) for
any given market segment and not even give Chrysler the time of day for
the crappy dealer treatment and crappy product I received from them.
In case I didn't get my point across, I **Hate** Chrysler!!!!!
In article <397DD5A5...@spam.thanks>,
Steve Lacker <n...@spam.thanks> wrote:
>
>
> shavings wrote:
>
> > > I'm going to purchase an SUV in a couple of months and am trying
to
> > > gather opinions from various owners on why they purchased one
specific
> > > brand over another.
>
> Don't own one personally, but last year my parents needed a new
vehicle,
> and wound up getting an SUV (Dodge Durango 2wd, 5.9L). I helped them
do
> their shopping around, so I got a good glimpse into the SUV market
last
> year.
>
> Reasons:
> - They wanted a vehicle that could carry 7 people
> - They wanted a BULLETPROOF drivetrain, which rules out front-wheel
drive
> and therefore most minivans.
> - They occasionally tow a 2000# trailer, which is theoretically
within the
> capability of a minvan, but would probably shorten the life of the FWD
> drivetrain even further.
> - They chose the Durango over others because of the reputation of the
318
> (5.2L) and 360 (5.9L) engines. Having owned half a dozen Chrysler
> smallblock v8s over the years, they knew that it would *never* cause
a hint
> of trouble, even if it sees 250,000 miles. Nor will the rear axle. Nor
> should the transmission (just a 4-speed version of the old A-727
automatic,
> which was the toughest auto trans on the market for 30 years).
>
> In short, it was RELIABILITY, RELIABILITY, RELIABILITY. You can't
come
> anywhere close to the ruggedness of a solid-axle, rear-drive, V8
vehicle,
> and the only way to get that package nowdays is a Ford Crown
Victoria, or
> an SUV.
>
> -- Stephen G. Lacker
> sglacker at texas dot net
> "Turn off your blinding fog lights, hang up, and DRIVE!"
>
>
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Steve Lacker
The Hawk wrote:
>
> >
> > Don't own one personally, but last year my parents needed a new vehicle,
> > and wound up getting an SUV (Dodge Durango 2wd, 5.9L). I helped them do
> > their shopping around, so I got a good glimpse into the SUV market last
> > year.
>
>
>
> > - They wanted a BULLETPROOF drivetrain, which rules out front-wheel drive
> > and therefore most minivans.
>
> Er...last I looked, four wheel drive meant rear wheel drive *and* front
> wheel drive. A four-wheel drive vehicle has the complexity of a front wheel
> driven vehicle *and* that of a rear-wheel drive vehicle.
Which is why, as I wrote above, I urged them to get a 2WD Durango :-)
> Unless, of course,
> you're driving a vehicle with solid axles on *both* ends. I dont think there
> are many such creatures out there anymore.
Thank God for Jeeps and full-size Ram trucks.
>
> I havent driven a chrysler for extended periods of time, but from what I
> hear and see, I would dare not buy one. I'm really amazed as to how you can
> extrapolate the realiability of your smallblock V-8s to the new magnum V-8s.
They bought a 360 (5.9L) which has been in production since 72. Its based on
the "LA" block which went into production as the 273 in 1964, and that in turn
was based on the "A" block 318 which was introduced in 1957. No extrapolation
required: the 5.9 IS a Chrysler smallblock. Toughest automobile engine family
on the planet, if you ask me.
Now, the LA smallblocks are due to be phased out in favor of the 4.7L SOHC v8
and the 5.7L Hemi v8 in the next few years. I extrapolate that those engines
will be superb for two reasons: 1) the 4.7 is already out there and has met
with nothing but rave reviews, and 2) In the last 70 years, Chrysler has had
*ONE* engine.... let me say that again O-N-E engine... with any form of
reliability issue, and that was the headgasket problem on the 2.0/2.4 family of
4-cylinder engines. A problem that has hit EVERY Japanese automaker on at least
one of their engines in the last 10 years as well. Big Honkin' Deal.
Myk
wrote:
>There were a bunch of us offroading this past weekend and for the first
>time at this location (Los Coyotes Indian Reservation in SoCalif), I saw
>a near-new Hummer out on the trail. He was effectively cut off to about
>half the terrain because he was so wide and couldn't fit into the most
>popular trails. Not only that but I was REALLY surprised by his limited
>articulation. His tires lifted off compltely on barely off-camber
>terrain... my personal observations. If you ask me, the Humvee may be a
>great urban assault vehicle but it's sure not a good all-around off-road
>vehicle when the terrain gets tight.
They worked fine in the desert as designed but for tight stuff.. well,
I'd rather not be in one when someone with a little rocket is waiting
for me to meander down the trail at a snails pace..
_____________________________________________
The Modern Miranda
"You have the right to remain silent
"You have the right to an attorney
"You have the right to be tried by the media...
bochinam
Omer Ahmad <om...@cae.ca> wrote in message news:8li0ue$aie$1...@dns3.cae.ca...
> For the Excursion, do you need a different class liscence? The thing is
> HUGE!!!!
>
> Omer.
>
> news:397c7f2e....@nntp.mindspring.com...
> > On Mon, 24 Jul 2000 11:50:50 -0500, "Dover, Robert [RICH2:2I53:EXCH]"
> > <do...@americasm01.nt.com> wrote:
> >
> > >I'm going to purchase an SUV in a couple of months and am trying to
> > >gather opinions from various owners on why they purchased one specific
> > >brand over another.
> > >
> >
> > 1. I wanted a vehicle that was going to last 15 to 20 years. (There
> > are no guarantees here so this was not the highest priority)
> >
> > 2. It had to carry 6 or 7 comfortably with room for cargo.
> >
> > 3. It had to have towing capacity to handle large trailers (Camper,
> > boat, etc.) without much stress.
> >
> > 4. It had to be able to go off-road, in snow, through water, etc.
> >
> > 5. It had to have the capability to convert from 'SUV mode' (family
> > hauling) to 'Truck mode' (4x8 sheets of plywood) quickly.
> >
> > I basically had the choice of a Suburban or an Excursion.
> >
> > I have family members who have had past experiences with Subs, and all
> > were good. My uncle has the same Sub that he had when I was a kid and
> > it still runs great. Once I decided I needed a truck, I bought a GMC
> > Sierra, but when the kids came along it wasn't practical anymore. I
> > wanted a vehicle that would last at least three times as long as it
> > took to pay it off (hence req. #1) and my experiences pointed to the
> > Sub.
> >
> > Plus, I qualified for the GM employee discount through my wife, so
> > there really wasn't a question of brand once we decided to buy new.
> >
>
>
KASPER KURT
driver. It scares me too!!!
Charlie Brown wrote:
>
> On Tue, 25 Jul 2000 13:35:00 GMT, Chris Phillipo
> <Xcphi...@ns.sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
> >Charlie Brown wrote:
> >
> >> On Mon, 24 Jul 2000 14:12:27 -0400, "Omer Ahmad" <om...@cae.ca> wrote:
> >>
> >> >For the Excursion, do you need a different class liscence? The thing is
> >> >HUGE!!!!
> >> >
> >> >Omer.
> >>
slacker808
things around from Point A to Point B.
SUV's don't have a purpose for most folks. i've got nothing against
SUV's. i just think the wrong people are buying them. like; soccer
moms, yuppies, old folks, timid drivers, aggressive drivers, and so on.
---
rich
Charlie Brown [cha...@juno.com] wrote:
>
<CLIP>
>
> >You cant see around
> >them, get terrible gas mileage and yet people complain
> >about the cost of gas, and they are too impractical and
> >expensive to maintain for me and many others.
>
> You can say the same in spades for commercial trucks, yet I don't see
> any concerted effort to ban them on these grounds...
>
<CLIP>
Adam Drew
>
> It is a 4Runner built on the Tundra chassis. The 4Runner is a Tacoma
> chassis. I would put its size at ever-so-slightly-smaller than a Yukon
> or Tahoe. So it is basically a 4Runner supersized as the Expedition is
> a supersized Explorer.
>
> SLG
A 4Runner is basically a "supersized" Tacoma, and the new SUV will be a
built on the Tundra platform.
The Ford Explorer is based on the Ranger platform (like the Chevy Blazer
is based on the S10) and the Expedition is based on the F-150.
Most SUV's are based on pickup trucks.
Adam
>
> Jerry Bransford <jer...@home.com> wrote:
>
> >Price-wise, isn't it supposed to fall in-between the 4Runner and Land
> >Cruiser?
> >
> >Jerry
> >
> >mercogliano wrote:
> >>
> >> I think Toyota will be selling a new SUV pretty soon, the Sequoia.
> >> Perhaps it is something to consider and wait for. I can't tell you
> >> anything about this vehicle other than the fact that I saw it at a movie
> >> studio where they were filming commercials. The vehicle was the size of
> >> a Landcruiser but I can't tell more than that, it was all covered up and
> >> I was only able to see the back. Maybe somebody in the newsgroup can
> >> tell you something about its specs and price.
> >
> >--
> >Jerry Bransford
> >PP-ASEL KC6TAY
> >The Zen Hotdog... make me one with everything!
> >Geezer Jeep: http://www.jjournal.net/jeep/gallery/JBransfordsTJ/
>
> (All spelling errors are intentional and are there to show new
> and improved ways of spelling old words. Grammatical errors are
> due to too many English classes/teachers)
Adam Drew
>
> > built on the Tundra platform.
> >
> > The Ford Explorer is based on the Ranger platform (like the Chevy Blazer
> > is based on the S10) and the Expedition is based on the F-150.
> >
> > Most SUV's are based on pickup trucks.
>
> them trucks.
What?! You mean poseur-mobiles like the Lexus RX300 aren't real
off-road warriors? :)
Adam
Stephan Rothstein
>
> well, commercial trucks have a purpose. they haul mass quantities of
> things around from Point A to Point B.
>
> SUV's don't have a purpose for most folks. i've got nothing against
> SUV's. i just think the wrong people are buying them. like; soccer
> moms, yuppies, old folks, timid drivers, aggressive drivers, and so on.
Well let's see, it is wrong if they are timid, and it is wrong if they
are not timid (aggressive).
Something in that statement doesn't seem to make sense to me.
Steve Rothstein
Gordon Fisher
> I bought my SUV because:
>
> 1) I enjoy spending extra money on insurance
> 2) I enjoy spending extra money on car washes for oversized vehicles
> 3) I enjoy spending extra money extra big tires
> 4) I enjoy spending extra money to repave my driveway because of the extra
> big tires
> 5) I enjoy spending extra money to remove the free running hubs inorder to
> turn my rotors
> 6) I enjoy spending extra money for oil changes to 2 differentials and 1
> transfer case
>
> ...I can go on ...
You forgot the best, looking down at the cleavage of the woman in the
convertible next to you at the light.
Huff
Um, sorry to tell ya, but the dodge 4spd trannies from 1994-1999 (verdict out
on 00 and 01's) have had quite a few early failures. Dealerships replace them
routinely. The 2000 and 2001's had minor changes to correct some problems but
we'll have to see.
D J Mann
>>
>
>Um, sorry to tell ya, but the dodge 4spd trannies from 1994-1999 (verdict out
>on 00 and 01's) have had quite a few early failures. Dealerships replace them
>routinely. The 2000 and 2001's had minor changes to correct some problems but
>we'll have to see.
They probably stopped making the overdrives out of paper maché.
jim
<cherr...@bmts.com> wrote:
>It all comes down to one thing, and one thing only. <snip>
That's right, get a Jeep! :)
Chris Phillipo
> >> It's no bigger than the F-250 SD it's built from.
> >> Heavier, but not bigger to any real extent.
> >
> >But more dangerous is the fact that you don't see too many soccer moms
> >driving the F-250 SD.
>
> Maybe I'm having a Brain Cloud day, but why would the fact that soccer
> moms don't drive the F-250 make it dangerous?
The fact that they DO drive the Excursion is what makes it more dangerous than
the 250 pickup.
--
__________________________________
Please remove "X" from email address to reply.
Chris Phillipo
> On Tue, 25 Jul 2000 02:38:19 GMT, Jerry Bransford <jer...@home.com>
> wrote:
>
> >There were a bunch of us offroading this past weekend and for the first
> >time at this location (Los Coyotes Indian Reservation in SoCalif), I saw
> >a near-new Hummer out on the trail. He was effectively cut off to about
> >half the terrain because he was so wide and couldn't fit into the most
> >popular trails. Not only that but I was REALLY surprised by his limited
> >articulation. His tires lifted off compltely on barely off-camber
> >terrain... my personal observations. If you ask me, the Humvee may be a
> >great urban assault vehicle but it's sure not a good all-around off-road
> >vehicle when the terrain gets tight.
The civilian version is a joke, all that money and you think you are getting
a mil. spec vehicle, and it just keeps getting cushier every year. It chokes
on 4 feet of water just like everything else. The "real" one can cross water
deep enough the drown the driver.
Chris Phillipo
> Jerry Bransford (jer...@home.com) wrote:
> : Price-wise, isn't it supposed to fall in-between the 4Runner and Land
> : Cruiser?
>
> Yes, but Toyota is also getting a version of the Lexus RX300, so they'll
> have 4 SUVs under the Toyota name.
5 if you could the Rav 4 as an SUV.
Chris Phillipo
>
> The Ford Explorer is based on the Ranger platform (like the Chevy Blazer
> is based on the S10) and the Expedition is based on the F-150.
>
> Most SUV's are based on pickup trucks.
At least they used to be before they started jacking up econobox cars and calling
them trucks.
--
Chris Phillipo
I would think he would want it to start. :)
Charlie Brown
wrote:
>he's intending soccer moms driving the excursion big vehicle women
>driver. It scares me too!!!
I'm sorry, this isn't making any sense to me.
Could you use more words for this poor person?
Thanks.
>
>Charlie Brown wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, 25 Jul 2000 13:35:00 GMT, Chris Phillipo
>> <Xcphi...@ns.sympatico.ca> wrote:
>>
>> >Charlie Brown wrote:
>> >
>> >> On Mon, 24 Jul 2000 14:12:27 -0400, "Omer Ahmad" <om...@cae.ca> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >For the Excursion, do you need a different class liscence? The thing is
>> >> >HUGE!!!!
>> >> >
>> >> >Omer.
>> >>
Charlie Brown
wrote:
>On Tue, 25 Jul 2000 02:38:19 GMT, Jerry Bransford <jer...@home.com>
>wrote:
>
>>There were a bunch of us offroading this past weekend and for the first
>>time at this location (Los Coyotes Indian Reservation in SoCalif), I saw
>>a near-new Hummer out on the trail. He was effectively cut off to about
>>half the terrain because he was so wide and couldn't fit into the most
>>popular trails. Not only that but I was REALLY surprised by his limited
>>articulation. His tires lifted off compltely on barely off-camber
>>terrain... my personal observations. If you ask me, the Humvee may be a
>>great urban assault vehicle but it's sure not a good all-around off-road
>>vehicle when the terrain gets tight.
>
>
>They worked fine in the desert as designed but for tight stuff.. well,
>I'd rather not be in one when someone with a little rocket is waiting
>for me to meander down the trail at a snails pace..
If someone was waiting with a rocket for me to meander down a trail,
I'd rather be in the desert! :-)
Steve Hersh
Years ago I mechanically restored a '70 TLC. The local 4X4 shop I liked for
parts specialized in Jeeps. One day I asked the owner what he had against
Toyota's. He looked around to make sure no one was in ear shot and said "I like
Toyotas fine, there the best damn 'wheeler out there. The problem is, I can't
make any money off off 'em. They don't break down often enough! Jeeps I like. It
takes a lot of mods to make them reliable in for tough off roading". I laughed
my ass off, I could not believe he said that, but one look in the shop at the 9
or 10 jeeps and other American trucks and I totally understood why he's been in
business forever.
I think a better question to ask about an off road vehicle is would you trust it
to take you across the Mojave Desert in stock trim?
Steve
'88 Toy Xtracab 4X4, still cruising right along ......
James Henry wrote:
> Unbiased opinion:
> Look at Consumer Reports. to help you make your decision.
> Also, take the rising gas prices into consideration.
> Biased opinion:
> I have had my fair share of Fords and I really can't say that I like them.
> After about 5-10 years, most of them develop a leak in the rear main seal
> (both my 1986 ford Escort, and my step dad's 86 F150, both horrid vehicles).
> Also, I think most Fords made in the last 10 years have big problems with
> the A/C system's leaking. an Uncle of mine had a Ford Exploder Eddie Bauer
> edition (98) and was backing down a highway off ramp (LONG story) when the
> tranny siezed, and the Exploder didn';t go anywhere after that. These
> experiences have turned me off totally to Fords.
> When I bought my 76 FJ40 Land Cruiser (ok, its not really an SUV but I
> willstill share), These are the things I took into condieration:
> #1) price: I only had about $3500 to spend, and I wanted something with a
> short wheel base and a removable top.
> #2) reliability. Too many expereinces with broken Fords and Jeeps.
> #3) Ease of mainanence. I do all my mechanical work myself after paying Pep
> boys too much money to replace rear main seals every 6 months. (strangly
> enough, I haven't had to replace a main seal since). The stock land crusier
> was designed to be maintained, which I can't say for another manufacturer
> *cough*Ford*cough*. Older GMC/Chevy's are good in that respect too (don't
> know too much about the newer ones)
> #4) Coolness factor. I thought the TLC was cooler than any other offering
> in my price range.
> EVERYbody (it seems) owns a Jeep. I wanted something a little different.
> #5) Get what YOU want. If you get talked into something that your really
> don't like, no matter what the reliability rating is, you probably won;t be
> happy with it.
> #6) Offroad prowess from a stock vehicle. Stock Jeeps are crap for any
> serious offroading. Most vehicles need to be modified for any serious
> offroad use. Not the Cruiser.
>
> I hope this helps. Again, these are all my opinions, and, with all opinions
> should be taken with a grain of salt.
>
> Have a nice 24th weekend (if you live in Utah) if not, happy SUV hunting.
>
> -James H.
>
> Dover, Robert [RICH2:2I53:EXCH] <do...@americasm01.nt.com> wrote in message
> news:397C73EA...@americasm01.nt.com...
> > I'm going to purchase an SUV in a couple of months and am trying to
> > gather opinions from various owners on why they purchased one specific
> > brand over another.
> >
> > Any/all comments welcome. Email to address below is preferred.
> > --
> >
> > +--------------------------------------+----------------------------+
> > | Bob Dover (do...@nortelnetworks.com) | My opinions, nothing more. |
> > +--------------------------------------+----------------------------+
> > | "The fellow who says he'll meet you halfway usually thinks he's |
> > | standing on the dividing line." -Orlando A. Battista |
> > +--------------------------------------+----------------------------+
Charlie Brown
<slack...@isp.net.com.edu.org.mil.gov.etc> wrote:
>well, commercial trucks have a purpose. they haul mass quantities of
>things around from Point A to Point B.
>
>SUV's don't have a purpose for most folks. i've got nothing against
>SUV's. i just think the wrong people are buying them. like; soccer
>moms, yuppies, old folks, timid drivers, aggressive drivers, and so on.
Of course you have something against SUVs. Just read what you wrote.
Chris Phillipo
> Right on James! No doubt that the best stock 4X4 is any TLC or Toyota truck!
>
> Years ago I mechanically restored a '70 TLC. The local 4X4 shop I liked for
> parts specialized in Jeeps. One day I asked the owner what he had against
> Toyota's. He looked around to make sure no one was in ear shot and said "I like
> Toyotas fine, there the best damn 'wheeler out there. The problem is, I can't
> make any money off off 'em. They don't break down often enough! Jeeps I like. It
> takes a lot of mods to make them reliable in for tough off roading". I laughed
> my ass off, I could not believe he said that, but one look in the shop at the 9
> or 10 jeeps and other American trucks and I totally understood why he's been in
> business forever.
>
> I think a better question to ask about an off road vehicle is would you trust it
> to take you across the Mojave Desert in stock trim?
Owner of the local "Parts For Trucks" store here is the same way, he sells
everything under the sun for big rigs, Dodge, Chevy and Jeep 4wds but drives a 1970s
Land Cruiser to work and restores one every year or so, sells it and then starts on
another.
Bruce Bergman
room to carry 5 and all their stuff, proven 300,000 mile plus
durability (the "F" engine is a shameless copy of the Stovebolt Six
that Chevy used sucessfully for 30 plus years), for the added
crash-protection of three tons of steel (while still getting 16 MPG
Hwy on a normal day)
For the available space to add a second battery and other accessories
under the hood with little fuss, and to add radio equipment to the
hump without major (and expensive to reverse) plastic-center-console
surgery. For tough straight-axles with simple leaf springs that are
hard to break and don't need to be realigned every two weeks. And
that the mechanic doesn't need expensive & stupid tools, like a
$megabuck$ machine to bend the I-beam axle to adjust the camber...
And in 1988 I would have been an utter fool to 'Buy American' and
pay to keep three mechanics' kids in college. Thankfully Detroit has
pretty much gotten their act together on the reliability front.
On Tue, 25 Jul 2000 02:38:19 GMT, Jerry Bransford <jer...@home.com>
wrote:
>There were a bunch of us offroading this past weekend and for the first
>time at this location (Los Coyotes Indian Reservation in SoCalif), I saw
>a near-new Hummer out on the trail. He was effectively cut off to about
>half the terrain because he was so wide and couldn't fit into the most
>popular trails. Not only that but I was REALLY surprised by his limited
>articulation. His tires lifted off compltely on barely off-camber
>terrain... my personal observations. If you ask me, the Humvee may be a
>great urban assault vehicle but it's sure not a good all-around off-road
>vehicle when the terrain gets tight.
That's the problem with the vehicle - the military doesn't have to
worry about damaging the terrain, if the trail isn't wide enough when
they arrive, it certainly will be by the time they're done. But if a
civilian tries that, the Sierra Club (mumblemumble - That's a whole
'nother thread...) would have a collective heart attack. And Hummers
are sprung stiff so you'll see wheels in the air, but it's not a huge
problem if they keep moving, I believe they come stock with
limited-slip in the transfer case and at both ends.
Now if you could take a shrunk-to-fit bulletproof Hummer-style
suspension, with 4-wheel independent suspension, planetary-geared
hubs, inboard brakes and other goodies, and put it under a LandCruiser
or Jeep CJ chassis with a decent helping of torque under the hood,
THEN you'd have the perfect civilian backwoods-basher that would still
"Tread Lightly" by fitting on the existing trails.
( Wasn't the old (1960's or 1970's) M-151 (IIRC) Mutt just what I
described? But the suspension handled *so* badly on-road that rather
than trying to sort it out, the military cut them up for scrap rather
than let them get into civilian hands where someone trying to drive it
on the highway could get hurt. Shoulda given a few to some Baja-1000
veteran off-road racers, they'd get it flying right in no time... )
--<< Bruce >>--
--
Bruce L. Bergman blCHURRObergman@ NOearthSPAMlink.netEVER Remove the caps.
Troubleshooter - Electrician, Phones, HVAC, Plumbing,...
'Current'ly with Westend Electric, Agoura, CA 818/889-9545
WARNING: No Unsolicited Commercial E-mail is EVER accepted.
Jerry Bransford
>
> slacker808 wrote:
> >
> > well, commercial trucks have a purpose. they haul mass quantities of
> > things around from Point A to Point B.
> >
> > SUV's don't have a purpose for most folks. i've got nothing against
> > SUV's. i just think the wrong people are buying them. like; soccer
> > moms, yuppies, old folks, timid drivers, aggressive drivers, and so on.
>
> are not timid (aggressive).
>
> Something in that statement doesn't seem to make sense to me.
Steve, it always kills me when a certain type of person complains about
the type of vehicle someone else buys. As if they should go take a test
or something to verify their motivations first. Some folks feel they
know what's good for everyone else and would tell them what they can buy
if they only had the power to do so... like they'd like to open up a
government agency to decide who gets to drive what kind of vehicle.
Sick.
Jerry
Tracy McKibben
<hog...@ixoommail.com> wrote:
>Hummm... something else was going on then, because just having
>a newer vehicle should increase the rate some!!!
I agree, I thought so too, but my monthly premium went DOWN $15 when I
switched vehicles... Never bothered to question it...
--
Tracy McKibben
tmcki...@noSPAM.mn.rr.com
--
th...@homenospam.com
<Xcphi...@ns.sympatico.ca> wrote:
>>...
>> Most SUV's are based on pickup trucks.
>
>At least they used to be before they started jacking up econobox cars and calling
>them trucks.
I own one of those "jcaked p econoboxes", a CR-V. And it's great for
what I want it for. But I don't think of it as a truck, and therein
lies the rub. Truck people scoff at it 'cause it sin't a truck, and
car people whine at it 'cause it's bigger than a car. Chrysler had a
helluva time trying to categorize the PT Cruiser for the same reason.
Well, guess what? I don't care. Perhaps there should be some other
category for things like the CR-V, but in any event until someone
offers to make my car payments I'll drive what I want. It's that
simple.
John Baltimore
Bob
"KASPER KURT" <kurt....@home.com> wrote in message
news:397E1D92...@home.com...
> he's intending soccer moms driving the excursion big vehicle women
> driver. It scares me too!!!
>
> Charlie Brown wrote:
Charles Canney
ccc
Lloyd R. Parker <lpa...@emory.edu> wrote in message
news:8lko3r$37o$1...@jet.cc.emory.edu...
> Steve Lacker (n...@spam.thanks) wrote:
> :
> :
> : shavings wrote:
> :
> : > > I'm going to purchase an SUV in a couple of months and am trying to
> : > > gather opinions from various owners on why they purchased one
specific
> : > > brand over another.
> :
> : Don't own one personally, but last year my parents needed a new
vehicle,
> : and wound up getting an SUV (Dodge Durango 2wd, 5.9L). I helped them do
> : their shopping around, so I got a good glimpse into the SUV market last
> : year.
> :
> : Reasons:
> : - They wanted a vehicle that could carry 7 people
>
> Taurus wagon, Mercedes E320 wagon, minivans...
>
> : - They wanted a BULLETPROOF drivetrain, which rules out front-wheel
drive
> : and therefore most minivans.
>
> SUVs have the worst reliability records of any vehicles in CR. Minivans
> fare much better.
>
> : - They occasionally tow a 2000# trailer, which is theoretically within
the
> : capability of a minvan, but would probably shorten the life of the FWD
> : drivetrain even further.
> : - They chose the Durango over others because of the reputation of the
318
> : (5.2L) and 360 (5.9L) engines. Having owned half a dozen Chrysler
> : smallblock v8s over the years, they knew that it would *never* cause a
hint
> : of trouble, even if it sees 250,000 miles. Nor will the rear axle. Nor
> : should the transmission (just a 4-speed version of the old A-727
automatic,
> : which was the toughest auto trans on the market for 30 years).
>
> No hint of trouble? Better check Consumer Reports; the current owners are
> doing more than "hinting" of trouble.
>
> :
> : In short, it was RELIABILITY, RELIABILITY, RELIABILITY. You can't come
> : anywhere close to the ruggedness of a solid-axle, rear-drive, V8
vehicle,
> : and the only way to get that package nowdays is a Ford Crown Victoria,
or
> : an SUV.
>
> Sorry, false, false, false. Ruggedness is one thing SUVs may have, but
> reliability is not one attribute. Other than the expected reliability of
> Toyota and Lexus SUVs, expecting an SUV to be reliable is like expecting
> Ronald Reagan to remember where he left his hat.
Chris Phillipo
> Chris Phillipo wrote:
> >
> > > built on the Tundra platform.
> > >
> > > The Ford Explorer is based on the Ranger platform (like the Chevy Blazer
> > > is based on the S10) and the Expedition is based on the F-150.
> > >
> > > Most SUV's are based on pickup trucks.
> >
> > At least they used to be before they started jacking up econobox cars and calling
> > them trucks.
>
> What?! You mean poseur-mobiles like the Lexus RX300 aren't real
> off-road warriors? :)
>
> Adam
>
Technically, parking lots are off-road :)
Chris Phillipo
> >them trucks.
>
> what I want it for. But I don't think of it as a truck, and therein
> lies the rub. Truck people scoff at it 'cause it sin't a truck, and
> car people whine at it 'cause it's bigger than a car. Chrysler had a
> helluva time trying to categorize the PT Cruiser for the same reason.
>
> Well, guess what? I don't care. Perhaps there should be some other
> category for things like the CR-V, but in any event until someone
> offers to make my car payments I'll drive what I want. It's that
> simple.
>
> John Baltimore
I don't really care what the owners think of them, but these things are marketed as
off-road vehicles. Take them off road and see how long your warranty lasts. Whatever
class all wheel drive cars are in is the same class Rav-4, CRV etc. should be in.
There's nothing wrong with having a car that can go through deep snow (with the right
tires), just so long as the salesman didn't fool you into thinking it can also be
setup to go through deep water.
Alexander
wrote:
<snip>
Lloyd, dammit! Get your liberal, SUV bashing ass back over to
atl.general! ; )
Chris Herrington
Everything
Except
Payments
Happy Moparing
Chris
dm...@my-deja.com
Minivans
> fare much better.
>
> No hint of trouble? Better check Consumer Reports; the current
owners are
> doing more than "hinting" of trouble.
>
>
> Sorry, false, false, false. Ruggedness is one thing SUVs may have,
but
> reliability is not one attribute. Other than the expected
reliability of
> Toyota and Lexus SUVs, expecting an SUV to be reliable is like
expecting
> Ronald Reagan to remember where he left his hat.
>
Oh, flippin wonderful - a CR brainwashed SUV basher. I can tell right
now this thread is gonna go nowhere fast.
Taking a dig at an alzheimer's victim? Go ahead, try to make yourself a
little more hateable - I don't think you can.
Dave
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Ron(Fla)
than a "POP"?
Ron(Fla)
"Chris Phillipo" <Xcphi...@ns.sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:397E4FBE...@ns.sympatico.ca...
> > >>
> > >> It's no bigger than the F-250 SD it's built from.
> > >> Heavier, but not bigger to any real extent.
> > >
> > >But more dangerous is the fact that you don't see too many soccer moms
> > >driving the F-250 SD.
> >
> > Maybe I'm having a Brain Cloud day, but why would the fact that soccer
> > moms don't drive the F-250 make it dangerous?
>
> The fact that they DO drive the Excursion is what makes it more dangerous
than
> the 250 pickup.
>
>
Lloyd R. Parker
: bought it because I was tired of being trapped in
: snow all the time....
:
: on the issue of bumper height, I mostly agree...
: however, don't forget physics... bigger cars are
: almost always safer... if you crash a Lincoln town car
: into a geo metro... guess who's in more danger?
: (or if you crash a Suburban or Excursion into an 18-wheeler
: at 60mph)
But data shows the occupants of a car fare worse when struck by an SUV
than when struck by a car of the same weight as the SUV. The SUV's
bumpers are higher and it doesn't crumple like a car so it doesn't absorb
as much of the energy, leaving the car to absorb more.
:
:
: "Charlie Brown" <cha...@juno.com> wrote in message
: news:397e0b73....@news.uswest.net...
: > On Tue, 25 Jul 2000 21:14:34 GMT, "(Pete Cresswell)"
: > <4...@fatbelly.com> wrote:
: >
: > >RE/
: > >>Interesting concern about bumper height... Do you have a tendancy to
: > >>rear-end or T-bone people?
: > >>
: > >>I've always driven vehicles who's bumpers are taller and at least twice
: the
: > >>weight than the other vehicle. I have never had a problem with anyone
: > >>getting hurt in an accident that is my fault. (e.g. I T-boned them or
: > >>rear-ended them)
: > >
: > >My accident experience is limited, I'm just guessing that if my bumper is
: at the
: > >height of somebody's shoulder instead of the re-inforced area in their
: door the
: > >chances of them getting injured rise sharply.
: > >
: > >In just a little over 900,000 miles of driving, I've had three crashes:
: > >
: > >1) I hit somebody broadside in a parking lot. He was stopped, I was
: going
: > >about 1.2 mph.
: > >
: > >2) A drunk nailed me on from the rear quarter on my motorcycle at about
: 50 mph.
: > >
: > >3) Somebody rearended me when I was at a dead stop with my four-ways
: flashing.
: > >Was in a beeeeeeeg car or I probably wouldn't be sitting here writing
: this.
: > >
: > >
: > >My dream vehicle is probably something like a 2-axle dump truck with
: mouse fuzz
: > >upholstery and a decent stereo.
: > >
: > >But the bumper height thing is real....It's not exactly pure altruism on
: my
: > >part...It's more like I know that wiping out a mother and a couple of
: children
: > >when I could have done something to prevent it could screw up my mind for
: the
: > >rest of my life - driver fault notwithstanding.
: > >
: > >
: > >It's probably not PC in a group like this, but I'm all for standard
: bumper
: > >height, headlight height, and headlight width. It'll never happen, but
: iI'd
: > >bet the mortgage money that it would decrease deaths and serious injury
: and for
: > >sure it would make nighttime driving a lot easier.
: > >-----------------------
: > >Pete Cresswell
: >
: > You're right, a uniform bumper height would reduce costs in both human
: > carnage & repair costs.
: > However, you're also right in that it ain't gonna happen, because not
: > all vehicles are the same.
: > Headlight height is now regulated, and the lights must be within a
: > specific range of height.
: >
: > What would also save a lot is making all non-commercial vehicles
: > exactly the same. However, I seriously doubt that you'd want to live
: > in a country that had the ability to actually do that.
: >
: > Seperate traffic lanes (with a median divider) for commercial vehicles
: > would also save lives & $$.
: >
: > The point is, there are *always* ways to reduce injuries & property
: > loss. The trick is, how do we actually do these things?
: >
:
:
Lloyd R. Parker
:
:
: Lloyd R. Parker wrote:
:
: >
: >
: > : - They wanted a BULLETPROOF drivetrain, which rules out front-wheel drive
: > : and therefore most minivans.
: >
: > SUVs have the worst reliability records of any vehicles in CR. Minivans
: > fare much better.
: >
:
: I don't give a rat's tail about CR.
Yes, I know you don't give a rat's tail about any data, prefering to
wallow in your own self-indulgence personal biases.
:
: Face it, Lloyd, RWD/v8/solid axle may be "primitive" but its indestructible.
:
Not true; suvs with such a driveline have, in general, the worst
reliabiility records.
: The fractional handling improvement of independent rear suspension is
nice, but
: not usually worth the cost (the Mustang is a nice exception), and the horrible
: handling of front-drive is definitely not a step in the right direction. I've
Compared to suvs, minivans are Ferraris.
Lloyd R. Parker
:
:
: The Hawk wrote:
:
: >
: > >
: > > Don't own one personally, but last year my parents needed a new vehicle,
: > > and wound up getting an SUV (Dodge Durango 2wd, 5.9L). I helped them do
: > > their shopping around, so I got a good glimpse into the SUV market last
: > > year.
: >
:
: >
: > > - They wanted a BULLETPROOF drivetrain, which rules out front-wheel drive
: > > and therefore most minivans.
: >
: > wheel drive. A four-wheel drive vehicle has the complexity of a front wheel
: > driven vehicle *and* that of a rear-wheel drive vehicle.
:
: Which is why, as I wrote above, I urged them to get a 2WD Durango :-)
You should urge them to check reliability data.
And why even bother with an SUV if you're going with 2wd? You get all the
disadvantages (poor mileage, poor ride, poor handling, hard to park, hard
to get in and out, poor acceleration) and don't get traction and off-road
ability of 4wd. And rwd suvs generally don't even offer traction control
like a lot of rwd cars do.
:
: > Unless, of course,
: > you're driving a vehicle with solid axles on *both* ends. I dont think there
: > are many such creatures out there anymore.
:
: Thank God for Jeeps and full-size Ram trucks.
:
: >
: > I havent driven a chrysler for extended periods of time, but from what I
: > hear and see, I would dare not buy one. I'm really amazed as to how you can
: > extrapolate the realiability of your smallblock V-8s to the new magnum V-8s.
:
: They bought a 360 (5.9L) which has been in production since 72. Its based on
: the "LA" block which went into production as the 273 in 1964, and that in turn
: was based on the "A" block 318 which was introduced in 1957. No extrapolation
: required: the 5.9 IS a Chrysler smallblock. Toughest automobile engine family
: on the planet, if you ask me.
Among the least reliable, if you ask the owners (as CR does).
:
: Now, the LA smallblocks are due to be phased out in favor of the 4.7L SOHC v8
: and the 5.7L Hemi v8 in the next few years. I extrapolate that those engines
: will be superb for two reasons: 1) the 4.7 is already out there and has met
: with nothing but rave reviews,
Except the new GC turned in a terrible reliability record in its first
year.
: and 2) In the last 70 years, Chrysler has had
: *ONE* engine.... let me say that again O-N-E engine... with any form of
: reliability issue, and that was the headgasket problem on the 2.0/2.4 family of
: 4-cylinder engines. A problem that has hit EVERY Japanese automaker on at least
: one of their engines in the last 10 years as well. Big Honkin' Deal.
Not so. Look at the CR data, which the _owners_ report.
Lloyd R. Parker
: Steve Garrotto wrote:
: >
: > It is a 4Runner built on the Tundra chassis. The 4Runner is a Tacoma
: > chassis. I would put its size at ever-so-slightly-smaller than a Yukon
: > or Tahoe. So it is basically a 4Runner supersized as the Expedition is
: > a supersized Explorer.
: >
: > SLG
:
: A 4Runner is basically a "supersized" Tacoma, and the new SUV will be a
: built on the Tundra platform.
:
: The Ford Explorer is based on the Ranger platform (like the Chevy Blazer
: is based on the S10) and the Expedition is based on the F-150.
:
: Most SUV's are based on pickup trucks.
And now we get the Ford Explorer SportTrac, a pickup based on an SUV based
on a pickup!
Lloyd R. Parker
: > built on the Tundra platform.
: >
: > The Ford Explorer is based on the Ranger platform (like the Chevy Blazer
: > is based on the S10) and the Expedition is based on the F-150.
: >
: > Most SUV's are based on pickup trucks.
: At least they used to be before they started jacking up econobox cars and calling
: them trucks.
:
: --
: __________________________________
: Please remove "X" from email address to reply.
:
Well let's see:
Truck-based SUVs:
4Runner
Land Cruiser
LX470
Pathfinder
Xterra
QX4
Passport
Amigo
Rodeo
Trooper
VehiCross
Montero
Montero Sport
Discovery
Range Rover
Explorer
Explorer SportTrac
Expedition
Excursion
Mountaineer
Blazer
Tahoe
Suburban
Yukon
Yukon XL
Jimmy
Bravada
Durango
Wrangler
Cherokee
Grand Cherokee
M-class
Sportage
Vitara
And coming, Toyota Sequoia, full-size Dodge.
Car-based:
RAV4
RX300
Forester
CRV
X5
And coming, Toyota Highlander, Mazda Tribute, Acura, Audi AllRoad, Ford
Escape.
Nope, the vast majority are truck-based.
Lloyd R. Parker
: In rec.autos.driving Kenny_B <Ken...@mail.com> wrote:
: % 1) I enjoy spending extra money on insurance
:
: Full coverage insurance on my Durango cheaper than 3 of the 4 sedans I was
: looking (Maxima, Passat, Alero) and comparable to the last (Lumina)
Hard to believe, since the price of the car determines most of the premium
for collision and comprehensive.
Charlie Brown
<Xcphi...@ns.sympatico.ca> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> It's no bigger than the F-250 SD it's built from.
>> >> Heavier, but not bigger to any real extent.
>> >
>> >But more dangerous is the fact that you don't see too many soccer moms
>> >driving the F-250 SD.
>>
>> Maybe I'm having a Brain Cloud day, but why would the fact that soccer
>> moms don't drive the F-250 make it dangerous?
>
>The fact that they DO drive the Excursion is what makes it more dangerous than
>the 250 pickup.
Ohhhhh!
Thanks!
I sometimes have problems with such subtle sarcasm.
Charlie Brown
<Xcphi...@ns.sympatico.ca> wrote:
>> >At least they used to be before they started jacking up econobox cars and calling
>> >them trucks.
>>
>> I own one of those "jcaked p econoboxes", a CR-V. And it's great for
>> what I want it for. But I don't think of it as a truck, and therein
>> lies the rub. Truck people scoff at it 'cause it sin't a truck, and
>> car people whine at it 'cause it's bigger than a car. Chrysler had a
>> helluva time trying to categorize the PT Cruiser for the same reason.
>>
>> Well, guess what? I don't care. Perhaps there should be some other
>> category for things like the CR-V, but in any event until someone
>> offers to make my car payments I'll drive what I want. It's that
>> simple.
>>
>> John Baltimore
>
>I don't really care what the owners think of them, but these things are marketed as
>off-road vehicles. Take them off road and see how long your warranty lasts. Whatever
>class all wheel drive cars are in is the same class Rav-4, CRV etc. should be in.
>There's nothing wrong with having a car that can go through deep snow (with the right
>tires), just so long as the salesman didn't fool you into thinking it can also be
>setup to go through deep water.
If the manufacturers thought they'd make money by marketing them as
hula hoops, they would.
It's up to the buyer to determine fitness for intended use.
Caveat emptor.
Lloyd R. Parker
: In article <8lko3r$37o$1...@jet.cc.emory.edu>,
: Minivans
: > fare much better.
: >
: > No hint of trouble? Better check Consumer Reports; the current
: owners are
: > doing more than "hinting" of trouble.
: >
: <snip>
: >
: > Sorry, false, false, false. Ruggedness is one thing SUVs may have,
: but
: > reliability is not one attribute. Other than the expected
: reliability of
: > Toyota and Lexus SUVs, expecting an SUV to be reliable is like
: expecting
: > Ronald Reagan to remember where he left his hat.
: >
:
: Oh, flippin wonderful - a CR brainwashed SUV basher. I can tell right
: now this thread is gonna go nowhere fast.
Oh, flippin wonderful. Someone who dismisses the only source of
reliability data around, preferring anecdotal "evidence," I presume.
:
: Taking a dig at an alzheimer's victim? Go ahead, try to make yourself a
: little more hateable - I don't think you can.
If that victim hadn't sold arms to a terrorist nation and then
conveniently forgotten about it when questioned, I wouldn't have brought
it up.
:
: Dave
Lloyd R. Parker
: Cheap shot at Reagan. Everybody gets old, even you someday.
: ccc
True, but I don't plan on selling arms to terrorist nations and sending
arms illegally to a rebel group and conveniently forgetting about it when
questioned.
:
: Lloyd R. Parker <lpa...@emory.edu> wrote in message
: news:8lko3r$37o$1...@jet.cc.emory.edu...
: > Steve Lacker (n...@spam.thanks) wrote:
: > :
: > :
: > : shavings wrote:
: > :
: > : > > I'm going to purchase an SUV in a couple of months and am trying to
: > : > > gather opinions from various owners on why they purchased one
: specific
: > : > > brand over another.
: > :
: > : Don't own one personally, but last year my parents needed a new
: vehicle,
: > : and wound up getting an SUV (Dodge Durango 2wd, 5.9L). I helped them do
: > : their shopping around, so I got a good glimpse into the SUV market last
: > : year.
: > :
: > : Reasons:
: > : - They wanted a vehicle that could carry 7 people
: >
: > Taurus wagon, Mercedes E320 wagon, minivans...
: >
: > : - They wanted a BULLETPROOF drivetrain, which rules out front-wheel
: drive
: > : and therefore most minivans.
: >
: > SUVs have the worst reliability records of any vehicles in CR. Minivans
: > fare much better.
: >
: > : - They occasionally tow a 2000# trailer, which is theoretically within
: the
: > : capability of a minvan, but would probably shorten the life of the FWD
: > : drivetrain even further.
: > : - They chose the Durango over others because of the reputation of the
: 318
: > : (5.2L) and 360 (5.9L) engines. Having owned half a dozen Chrysler
: > : smallblock v8s over the years, they knew that it would *never* cause a
: hint
: > : of trouble, even if it sees 250,000 miles. Nor will the rear axle. Nor
: > : should the transmission (just a 4-speed version of the old A-727
: automatic,
: > : which was the toughest auto trans on the market for 30 years).
: >
: > No hint of trouble? Better check Consumer Reports; the current owners are
: > doing more than "hinting" of trouble.
: >
: > :
: > : In short, it was RELIABILITY, RELIABILITY, RELIABILITY. You can't come
: > : anywhere close to the ruggedness of a solid-axle, rear-drive, V8
: vehicle,
: > : and the only way to get that package nowdays is a Ford Crown Victoria,
: or
: > : an SUV.