Click on the link and find out! :praise:
10 reasons why you should buy a Pontiac Aztek right now
(http://o.aolcdn.com/dims-global/dims3/GLOB/legacy_thumbnail/750x422/quality/95/https://s.blogcdn.com/slideshows/images/slides/425/225/3/S4252253/slug/l/general-motors-debuts-the-pontiac-aztek-at-the-nor-2.jpg)
(https://s18.postimg.org/ofkwbwcvd/Untitled_1_copy.jpg)
Link: http://www.autoblog.com/photos/10-reasons-why-buy-a-pontiac-aztek-right-now/#slide-4252253
I refuse.
What was wrong with he Vigor and the Echo?
I actually think they're right. I've thought the Aztek has what it takes to be a future classic for a long time now.
Quote from: Raza on November 10, 2016, 06:04:00 AM
I actually think they're right. I've thought the Aztek has what it takes to be a future classic for a long time now.
It's sort of like an AMC Gremlin / Pacer. Ugly but sort of lovable in its own way and with a cult following.
I will forever think of Walter White when I see an Aztek.
Had this been introduced this year it would have been just another crossover:
(https://static.cargurus.com/images/site/2008/04/30/21/55/2003_pontiac_aztek-pic-4964-1600x1200.jpeg)
Not that ugly in comparison when it had body colored lowers and the optional 5 spoke wheels.
(https://www.cstatic-images.com/phototab/3/7/3/5c/fc20885630bda8573d265730bfa.jpg)
Quote from: ChrisV on February 03, 2017, 05:59:35 AM
Had this been introduced this year it would have been just another crossover:
(https://static.cargurus.com/images/site/2008/04/30/21/55/2003_pontiac_aztek-pic-4964-1600x1200.jpeg)
Not that ugly in comparison when it had body colored lowers and the optional 5 spoke wheels.
(https://www.cstatic-images.com/phototab/3/7/3/5c/fc20885630bda8573d265730bfa.jpg)
That's true. It was ahead of its time when it came to ugly design. Now ugly is in, and it's been so in long and so strong that people even think ugly looks good (like the vomit in the mouth Nissan Juke).
Hmm, just like the first one I posted:
https://www.cars.com/vehicledetail/detail/685605773/overview/
A bit high priced, but looks to be in good shape...
https://www.cars.com/vehicledetail/detail/691717833/overview/
Quote from: CALL_911 on November 06, 2016, 01:36:34 PM
What was wrong with he Vigor and the Echo?
Clickbait writer don't got time to think about these things
Quote from: ChrisV on February 03, 2017, 05:59:35 AM
Had this been introduced this year it would have been just another crossover:
(https://static.cargurus.com/images/site/2008/04/30/21/55/2003_pontiac_aztek-pic-4964-1600x1200.jpeg)
Not that ugly in comparison when it had body colored lowers and the optional 5 spoke wheels.
(https://www.cstatic-images.com/phototab/3/7/3/5c/fc20885630bda8573d265730bfa.jpg)
The drtaling isn't the bad part of the Aztek. The ugliness of the aztek comes from its bad proportions. The wheels look tiny under the, skinny, and tall body. It clearly was a cheap way to turn a mediocre minivan chassis into an "SUV".
It also drove like the Chevy Venture it was based upon.
Quote from: Raza on February 03, 2017, 06:01:53 AM
That's true. It was ahead of its time when it came to ugly design. Now ugly is in, and it's been so in long and so strong that people even think ugly looks good (like the vomit in the mouth Nissan Juke).
The Juke has really athletic proportions, despite it's weird face. Big wheels, wide hips, it's really strong looking compared to other cars in its class.
I would love a Nissan Juke NISMO RS with 6 speed manual transmission.
Quote from: 2o6 on February 03, 2017, 02:44:17 PM
The Juke has really athletic proportions, despite it's weird face. Big wheels, wide hips, it's really strong looking compared to other cars in its class.
I thought the Juke was pretty repulsive when it first came out. But now I agree that it's a fairly good (albeit weird) looking vehicle.
They're making vehicles like they make pop songs. You can't fuckin' stand them when they come out and are way overplayed on the radio, but after a while, you just kinda go "meh, I guess this isn't so bad."
Quote from: 2o6 on February 03, 2017, 02:42:23 PM
The wheels look tiny under the, skinny, and tall body.
That's cause we're now used to 20s on everything. The 17s weren't really bad.
QuoteIt also drove like the Chevy Venture it was based upon.
Well it was more a shortened AWD Montana, which was a different feeling rig than the typical FWD Venture... ;) I didn't mind it at all when I drove an '03 with the optional 17s. Just a normal crossover, really. If you don't expect it to be a sports car, you don't get disappointed.
Weren't most of them FWD?
Quote from: Raza on February 03, 2017, 06:01:53 AM
That's true. It was ahead of its time when it came to ugly design. Now ugly is in, and it's been so in long and so strong that people even think ugly looks good (like the vomit in the mouth Nissan Juke).
:hesaid:
Quote from: ChrisV on February 03, 2017, 04:59:59 PM
That's cause we're now used to 20s on everything. The 17s weren't really bad.
Well it was more a shortened AWD Montana, which was a different feeling rig than the typical FWD Venture... ;) I didn't mind it at all when I drove an '03 with the optional 17s. Just a normal crossover, really. If you don't expect it to be a sports car, you don't get disappointed.
Nah, the Aztek's wheels are small and look small. Even a comparable gen 1 Saturn VUE looked better, and the contemporary Highlander and RX300 wore their wheels better.
And most of those Azteks were FWD. and the Montana is a damn badge job of the Venture. The ride was wallowy, and the Highlander and Pilot blew the U body crossovers out the water.
Goddamn hacked up minivan.
Quote from: 2o6 on February 03, 2017, 02:44:17 PM
The Juke has really athletic proportions, despite it's weird face. Big wheels, wide hips, it's really strong looking compared to other cars in its class.
It's so hideous it makes life not worth living.
Quote from: giant_mtb on February 03, 2017, 03:22:08 PM
I thought the Juke was pretty repulsive when it first came out. But now I agree that it's a fairly good (albeit weird) looking vehicle.
They're making vehicles like they make pop songs. You can't fuckin' stand them when they come out and are way overplayed on the radio, but after a while, you just kinda go "meh, I guess this isn't so bad."
Here's why:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stockholm_syndrome
Okay, Raza
Quote from: 2o6 on February 03, 2017, 08:12:34 PM
Nah, the Aztek's wheels are small and look small. Even a comparable gen 1 Saturn VUE looked better, and the contemporary Highlander and RX300 wore their wheels better.
I like the 17" 5 spokes. They don't look small except next to a modern 20" wheel. Even my BMW has the optional extra large 18s, which now look small next to 20s. In 2001-02 when the Aztek came out, only cars like 911s and the big BMW and Mercs had 19s, so 17s were kind of normal. You were but a wee baby then, though...
QuoteAnd most of those Azteks were FWD.
Most were AWD, actually.
QuoteThe ride was wallowy, and the Highlander and Pilot blew the U body crossovers out the water.
They weren't that wallowy, at least not the AWD one I drove back in '02. And the Pilot then sucked and had less room. And was just as plasticky. It and the Highlander were just small, traditional SUVs not true crossovers with as much space or clever touches as the Aztek. The Aztek and Pacifica really ushered in the era of the true crossover.
Quote from: ChrisV on February 04, 2017, 07:22:46 AM
I like the 17" 5 spokes. They don't look small except next to a modern 20" wheel. Even my BMW has the optional extra large 18s, which now look small next to 20s. In 2001-02 when the Aztek came out, only cars like 911s and the big BMW and Mercs had 19s, so 17s were kind of normal. You were but a wee baby then, though...
Most were AWD, actually.
They weren't that wallowy, at least not the AWD one I drove back in '02. And the Pilot then sucked and had less room. And was just as plasticky. It and the Highlander were just small, traditional SUVs not true crossovers with as much space or clever touches as the Aztek. The Aztek and Pacifica really ushered in the era of the true crossover.
No....no it wasn't.
I've driven so many U body vans and the Aztek and Rendezvous (my parents own a Rendezvous). Although it's not as bad of a car as Journalists make it out to be, the Pilot and Highlander are so much better of a vehicle, it's not funny. The Aztek's suspension is wallowy - most cars were FWD and got the same unsophisticated solid rear axle as the Venture vans. AWD models got a different rear setup, that was also shared with the AWD variants (Olds Silhouette in particular), and it was wallowy as well. It drove like the Venture van it was based upon.
The 3.4L has torque, but it's nowhere near refined as the Honda J35 (even if that automatic transmission will basically disintegrate, but no one really knew that yet in 2003)
Also, stop saying that because i'm used to newer cars, the Aztek's 17's looked small because of the year.
It's because of the design. Once again, the Aztek was Minivan based, with very little budget on this project. GM engineers and designers couldn't be too extravagant with the proportions because at the end of the day - it had to use as many Venture Van parts as possible. The car looks narrow, (like a minivan - in fact that was one of the original complaints of the Venture van versus the Caravan or even the Odyssey), and is slab sided, with the greenhouse miles in the air. The plastic cladding was ugly, but without the cladding, it made the wheels look dinky under the big box of horribly-styled metal.
The Highlander has wheels that are the same size, but it manages to not look underwheeled -
(http://consumerguide.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/02812261990003.jpg)
The Pilot has slightly wider tires, but still - it looks OK.
(https://media.ed.edmunds-media.com/honda/pilot/2003/oem/2003_honda_pilot_4dr-suv_ex_fq_oem_1_500.jpg)
They look small, and even worse in person.
(https://media.ed.edmunds-media.com/pontiac/aztek/2003/oem/2003_pontiac_aztek_4dr-suv_base_s_oem_1_500.jpg)
The only benefit I can see to the Aztek/Rendezvous, is because it was minivan based, the 3rd row (Rendezvous) was actually usable - the Pilot's was good, but the Highlander's was a joke.
And the Aztek was every bit of a "Crossover" as the Highlander was. They were in the same segment, going for the same buyers. GM just did not spend anywhere near as much money as they should have in making a competent product.
Evidently, they ended up learning and by 2006 they had a pretty strong large crossover - the GMC Acadia. (And other LAMBDA cars)
Quote from: ChrisV on February 03, 2017, 04:59:59 PM
That's cause we're now used to 20s on everything. The 17s weren't really bad.
Well it was more a shortened AWD Montana, which was a different feeling rig than the typical FWD Venture... ;) I didn't mind it at all when I drove an '03 with the optional 17s. Just a normal crossover, really. If you don't expect it to be a sports car, you don't get disappointed.
The same could be said about syphilis and HIV.
Quote from: Submariner on February 10, 2017, 01:06:51 PM
The same could be said about syphilis and HIV.
Don't expect syphilis to be a sports car and I won't be disappointed? Good to know.