Short list for wifey... we have time though
Any other ideas? Just want a roomy reliable 2 row with some punch for <$20K. Thought about the Q5 but it's borderline with reliability and I hate the center console. CR-V etc are too slow and common
Crv or Escape probably. Forester?
I would definitely say no to both the Murano and Venza.
Lots to choose from. Might even check out some domestics or Euros.
I would think that something like this https://www.cargurus.com/Cars/l-Used-Ford-Edge-Columbia-d923_L31980#listing=170038820 (https://www.cargurus.com/Cars/l-Used-Ford-Edge-Columbia-d923_L31980#listing=170038820)...would, pretty much, fit your bill; with less mileage though.
You could snag a nicely optioned CX-5 for that kinda dough.
Quote from: FoMoJo on March 26, 2017, 10:06:30 AM
Lots to choose from. Might even check out some domestics or Euros.
I would think that something like this https://www.cargurus.com/Cars/l-Used-Ford-Edge-Columbia-d923_L31980#listing=170038820 (https://www.cargurus.com/Cars/l-Used-Ford-Edge-Columbia-d923_L31980#listing=170038820)...would, pretty much, fit your bill; with less mileage though.
The Edge is another one to consider, yeah -- respectable reliability record.
CX-5 or CX-7
Quote from: CaminoRacer on March 26, 2017, 11:24:32 AM
CX-5 or CX-7
CX-7's are terrible about staying together. Avoid anything with that Mazda 2.3L
The CX-5 is sharp, but it's not as refined as the Murano et al.
The Murano, I would make sure you get a warranty with that CVT. My friend's Nissan Rogue's CVT auto actually failed on her two days ago.
RDX is a safe bet, but I would look for the V6 model, and not the Turbo cars.
Venza is a also a safe bet, but it's more like a station wagon rather than an SUV.
X3 is probably out of your price range, but it sells wildly for a reason.
Quote from: Lebowski on March 26, 2017, 09:37:23 AM
Crv or Escape probably. Forester?
I would definitely say no to both the Murano and Venza.
Why no Murano/Venza? I don't like anything in that whole CR-V class outside of maybe the Tuscon 1.6T/Sportage SX. All too ugly/generic/slow.
CX-7 is a complete turd reliability wise as well. I hope they make a new one though, with that 2.5T.
I want something about as refined as the G that splits the difference in speed between the G and the Rabbit.
Quote from: 12,000 RPM on March 26, 2017, 11:37:57 AM
Why no Murano/Venza? I don't like anything in that whole CR-V class outside of maybe the Tuscon 1.6T/Sportage SX. All too ugly/generic/slow.
CX-7 is a complete turd reliability wise as well. I hope they make a new one though, with that 2.5T.
I want something about as refined as the G that splits the difference in speed between the G and the Rabbit.
I just never liked the looks of the murano or venza. I hear you on the CRV class, if I'm honest something like the CRV would probably be the ideal car for my gf but I don't think I could bring myself to buy one. I think looks wise, the escape is probably my favorite in that group but I think the CRV is a better product.
Venza
RDX
Though I'd probably go for a CX5
I hated the Venza when I drove it, though that was built with previous-generation Camry guts.
Quote from: CALL_911 on March 26, 2017, 01:17:03 PM
RDX
Though I'd probably go for a CX5
Blegh. Mazda is the right answer online, but unless it's followed by "MX-5 Miata" or "CX-9" it's the wrong answer in real life. They're not particularly roomy, they are a little expensive, and the engines suck.
Quote from: Laconian on March 26, 2017, 01:18:07 PM
I hated the Venza when I drove it, though that was built with previous-generation Camry guts.
What didn't you like about it? For whatever it's worth, I liked how the Genesis and Maxima drove. Not scintillating or full of feel, but dynamically competent.
Are you and the missus planning on making sporty babbies anytime soon? I would probably purchase a car based on how well it takes the baby and its massive throne, which isn't easily answered by a spec sheet. Things like how wide the rear doors open, how easily cleanable the fabric is, how easy the LATCH hooks are to work with, etc. etc.
Quote from: 12,000 RPM on March 26, 2017, 02:17:19 PM
What didn't you like about it? For whatever it's worth, I liked how the Genesis and Maxima drove. Not scintillating or full of feel, but dynamically competent.
Oh my god, the steering ratio was the among the worst I've ever encountered. Infinity plus one turns from lock to lock. And woefully underpowered for the heft of the car.
This was back in 2011, things are probably (?) different now.
Why isn't the Outback on this list? IMO it's one of the perfect cars. Great road manners, great fuel economy (for what it is), with the lowest TCO of all the SUVs according to CR.
Are you looking at FWD SUVs or AWD only? AWD is pretty superfluous in your climate, no? FWD SUVs don't sell worth a damn in the PNW or the Rockies.
^Because it's slow
Same 0-60 as the Venza I4.
I'm looking at FWD + V6 only. With DWS06s, all conditions are possible.™ Plus my new rule is more cylinders than tires. Every time I start the G I smile. So only 4s I want to deal with are in motorcycles.
As for kids, we are trying :) Not as easy as I thought it would be. Anyway I think the CR-V class would be better for kids in parking lots and shit, but these 3 have nice big back seats. Wifey has something like a 33" inseam so the extra room would be welcomed + a priority. Big thing will be how she takes to driving something so much bigger than the Rabbit.... but she drives her mom's van which is bigger than all these things no problem.
How about a Volvo XC60 a couple of years old, I6 though.
Quote from: 12,000 RPM on March 26, 2017, 03:28:50 PM
I'm looking at FWD + V6 only. With DWS06s, all conditions are possible.™ Plus my new rule is more cylinders than tires. Every time I start the G I smile. So only 4s I want to deal with are in motorcycles.
This is for your wife, though. Is the tradeoff between power and economy worth it to her? Or is she really anal retentive about NVH?
Quote
As for kids, we are trying :) Not as easy as I thought it would be.
OK. I'm not looking to pry, but knowing the timeline is important for making a recommendation.
Well the Rabbit gets pretty abysmal gas mileage, so she is kind of used to it. I suppose we can look at CR-Vs and the like out of due diligence. I do really like the Sportage
Chevy Equinox is actually a pretty nice car. The second generation can be had with a 6 cylinder. My father has a FWD 4 cylinder one which I like. Not as nice as a CRV but probably can get a better
deal and they're reliable.
Out of these I'd go with the Venza. It's huge inside and the width will be nice once you start putting a car seat in the rear. Never know when you'll need to put an adult or a second one back there. ;)
I'll also second the latest Gen Edge/MKX. FoMoCo makes amazingly comfortable seats
https://www.cargurus.com/Cars/inventorylisting/viewDetailsFilterViewInventoryListing.action?sourceContext=forSaleTab_false_0&formSourceTag=112&newSearchFromOverviewPage=true&inventorySearchWidgetType=AUTO&entitySelectingHelper.selectedEntity=c24509&entitySelectingHelper.selectedEntity2=&zip=14468&distance=50000&searchChanged=true&modelChanged=true&filtersModified=true&sortType=undefined&sortDirection=undefined#listing=153113086
https://www.cargurus.com/Cars/inventorylisting/viewDetailsFilterViewInventoryListing.action?sourceContext=carGurusHomePage_false_0&formSourceTag=112&newSearchFromOverviewPage=true&inventorySearchWidgetType=AUTO&entitySelectingHelper.selectedEntity=c24820&entitySelectingHelper.selectedEntity2=&zip=14468&distance=50000&searchChanged=true&modelChanged=false&filtersModified=true#listing=169945683_isFeatured
I had a newer Edge as a rental last winter and it was decent. Really sporty steering. The 2.0T, even saddled by AWD, seemed potent enough. Wide passenger cabin as well.
CPO XC90 or X3?
Quote from: Raza on March 27, 2017, 09:25:45 AM
CPO XC90 or X3?
No
Volvo <> reliable
328I rental turned me off from current gen BMWs. Plus X3 looks like a RAV4. Cannot unsee
I will check out the Edge. Just scared of old SYNC system and from what I remember the center stack is ugly. Just looks dated in general
Quote from: 12,000 RPM on March 27, 2017, 12:08:22 PM
No
Volvo <> reliable
328I rental turned me off from current gen BMWs. Plus X3 looks like a RAV4. Cannot unsee
I will check out the Edge. Just scared of old SYNC system and from what I remember the center stack is ugly. Just looks dated in general
I posted a link to one. I'm pretty sure the 2015 has the new sync and center stack design
Quote from: Laconian on March 26, 2017, 02:23:54 PM
Why isn't the Outback on this list? IMO it's one of the perfect cars. Great road manners, great fuel economy (for what it is), with the lowest TCO of all the SUVs according to CR.
Quote from: CALL_911 on March 26, 2017, 03:17:37 PM
^Because it's slow
Not with the six-cylinder!
Since when are Volvos unreliable?
Quote from: ifcar on March 27, 2017, 07:34:52 PM
Not with the six-cylinder!
Yeah, just get the Outback. Or the Forester, which I think is just the same car, but boxier.
Quote from: Raza on March 28, 2017, 05:58:39 AM
Yeah, just get the Outback. Or the Forester, which I think is just the same car, but boxier.
No the Outback is on a larger/more refined platform. The interior on the Outback is now legitimately nice for a mainstream vehicle.
(http://pictures.dealer.com/f/fergusonsubarusoa/1852/a9fcd41ef55a92777f9e50b6b2261df0x.jpg)
Quote from: 2o6 on March 28, 2017, 08:47:27 AM
Since always
Older Volvo's had a solid reliability reputation. I'm talking the old, RWD ones like the 240, that would run forever.
Quote from: MX793 on March 28, 2017, 10:00:14 AM
Older Volvo's had a solid reliability reputation. I'm talking the old, RWD ones like the 240, that would run forever.
I assume that pretty much correlates to the pre-Ford Volvos?
Quote from: BimmerM3 on March 29, 2017, 08:26:36 AM
I assume that pretty much correlates to the pre-Ford Volvos?
No. There was a period before Ford ownership where they were average at best. 90s, basically.
Quote from: Raza on March 28, 2017, 05:56:56 AM
Since when are Volvos unreliable?
Hmm Consumer Reports doesn't seem to down on them.... but I just don't like modern Volvos anyway.
Can you get more Highlander for your money than the Acura? I always thought they were a huge step up from the Rav4 and CRV on exterior and interior style (although the Honda isn't terrible on the nicer trims). As much as I hate my friend's Rav4, it feels like a solid hunk of granite.
Highlander is way too big. Talking more with her it seems wifey wants something like the Rabbit but higher up and a little bigger. I think our first looks will be the Tuscon/Sportage.... then we will try the Murano... and see which extreme she is more fond of.
Also have the Tiguan, HR-V, Equinox, Encore, and Terrain in that range, didn't see them mentioned.
Edit: someone else said Equinox too; my buddy bought one for his wife last fall, I like it.
Equinox is not nearly as nice as the others.
Sporty put her on some deuce deuces
(https://scontent-sea1-1.cdninstagram.com/t51.2885-15/e35/13398804_605962546244634_1713950573_n.jpg)
(https://scontent-sea1-1.cdninstagram.com/t51.2885-15/e35/13259031_196761704052258_1238308051_n.jpg)
Rear facing seat will not be an issue for passengers at all. The Venza is probably the Roomiest besides the Ford
(http://www.autos.ca/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/2015-Toyota-Venza-V6-AWD-Limited-BM-08-1024x682.jpg)
Also I know this isn't the same as actually having a seat to try in each vehicle but cars.com grades vehicles on how well they accommodate car seats.
https://www.cars.com/articles/2013/06/2013-toyota-venza-car-seat-check/
https://www.cars.com/articles/2016-nissan-murano-car-seat-check-1420684492118/
https://www.cars.com/articles/2016-acura-rdx-car-seat-check-1420680932037/
https://www.cars.com/articles/2016-ford-edge-car-seat-check-1420690450625/
Quote from: 12,000 RPM on March 30, 2017, 05:40:45 PM
Highlander is way too big. Talking more with her it seems wifey wants something like the Rabbit but higher up and a little bigger. I think our first looks will be the Tuscon/Sportage.... then we will try the Murano... and see which extreme she is more fond of.
An Escape 2.0-liter could be another option as a compact crossover that's still more powerful than a RAV4/CR-V/Rogue.
Tiguan is too small and I'm a little weary on VW right now. Hrv and Encore are too small AND to slow. Equinox just looks cheap. Escape 2.0t is not as fast as specs or fuel consumption suggest... Tuscon 1.6t is as fast with 3-5 more MPGs, Sportage SX guzzles more but is a good clip faster. I think in that class the Tuscon is probably the pick of the litter. If we went Ford it would be the Edge
Quote from: 12,000 RPM on March 31, 2017, 07:15:19 AM
Tiguan is too small and I'm a little weary on VW right now. Hrv and Encore are too small AND to slow. Equinox just looks cheap. Escape 2.0t is not as fast as specs or fuel consumption suggest... Tuscon 1.6t is as fast with 3-5 more MPGs, Sportage SX guzzles more but is a good clip faster. I think in that class the Tuscon is probably the pick of the litter. If we went Ford it would be the Edge
The Encore does have the optional larger engine, but it's definitely small inside. The Escape 2.0 felt respectably quick to me (I had a front-wheel-drive one to test recently), but the Edge is definitely cushier. I wasn't a fan of the Tucson's ride quality or steering, but it's not bad overall, especially now that they've apparently fixed a bug in the transmission software.
Venza on dubs
I like the Venza too;I feel like wifey will feel it's too big
Quote from: 12,000 RPM on March 30, 2017, 04:46:42 PM
Hmm Consumer Reports doesn't seem to down on them.... but I just don't like modern Volvos anyway.
Hmm, I really like XC90s. They were one of the first SUVs that started to turn me around on them.
(http://st.motortrend.com/uploads/sites/10/2015/09/2014-Volvo-XC90-front-three-quarter-in-motion.jpg)
What about a Discovery Sport? FoMoJo seems to love his.
Quote from: Raza on April 01, 2017, 02:24:43 AM
What about a Discovery Sport? FoMoJo seems to love his.
Out of budget in warranty. Out of warranty Land Rover product = starting a land war in Asia.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FvJCCoLoKRA&t=0s
Quote from: Raza on April 01, 2017, 02:24:43 AM
What about a Discovery Sport? FoMoJo seems to love his.
So far, so good. We've had it for 4 months and it's been a very good experience.
Money wise, it's fairly cheap. We've leased it for 42 months at 464 $CAD rather than purchase which suits me because, other than being a bit leery of reliability, I wouldn't want to pay for any repairs. Warranty is 4 years, so it should cover anything that goes wrong. As well, it shouldn't need any major service within that period, tires, brakes, etc. with the usage we have.
As for construction, it's really just a made over Ford as it uses their CD platform, highly modified they claim, as well as the EcoBoost 2.0 I4 motor; likely with no modification other than logos. The transmission is a ZF-9 that works nicely with the engine. It also has more technical features than I care for.
Seems very solid, runs quiet, has a nice sound system. Love the navigation system; though it's very much a nagivation system; tells me all about the current traffic situations.
What impressed me the most is mileage. Gets amazingly good mileage for a fairly heavy vehicle if you are gentle with it. Of course, it can be terrible if you push it really hard.
I do really love the looks of the whole Land Rover lineup. Just can't stomach the risk. And even with free loaners and maintenance there's still the time cost.
Ya'll stay recommending shit that does not stay together
Raza needs to play the lotto with all the luck he's had.
Quote from: 12,000 RPM on April 01, 2017, 10:07:39 AM
I do really love the looks of the whole Land Rover lineup. Just can't stomach the risk. And even with free loaners and maintenance there's still the time cost.
I suspect that you can negotiate a cheaper monthly lease rate down there if you bargain hard enough. 36 to 42 months is a fairly safe length; as long as you don't abuse it.
Lease rate first presented to us was well over $500 CAD per month. After some serious bargaining, they dropped about $80 CAD. This is on a well eguipped model.
Quote from: 2o6 on April 01, 2017, 10:08:15 AM
Ya'll stay recommending shit that does not stay together
According to people on this forum, the only reliable cars are a small percentage of Japanese snoozeboxes.
For something like a crossover for your wife who ammittedly doesn't care about driving dynamics, you should 100% be getting a Japanese snooze box.
Quote from: MrH on April 02, 2017, 10:31:31 AM
For something like a crossover for your wife who ammittedly doesn't care about driving dynamics, you should 100% be getting a Japanese snooze box.
I bet she cares at least a little about style, though. When the best looking car on your list is an Acura, some god is forcing you to punish your eyes.
Why not just get a Jetta wagon
Quote from: MrH on April 02, 2017, 10:31:31 AM
For something like a crossover for your wife who ammittedly doesn't care about driving dynamics, you should 100% be getting a Japanese snooze box.
Isn't that what the RDX/Venza/Murano are? :confused:
Quote from: 12,000 RPM on April 03, 2017, 03:51:27 PM
Why?
Your looking at FWD SUV's which means you don't really need an SUV unless your 60 years old and can't bend down... Might as well get a wagon
Quote from: r0tor on April 03, 2017, 05:41:13 PM
Your looking at FWD SUV's which means you don't really need an SUV unless your 60 years old and can't bend down... Might as well get a wagon
Better/higher driving position. Of course it helps getting in and out if you don't have to squat down and twist your neck at an awkward angle.
Get an Outback with the 6-cylinder. Good cars.
Quote from: r0tor on April 03, 2017, 05:41:13 PM
Your looking at FWD SUV's which means you don't really need an SUV unless your 60 years old and can't bend down... Might as well get a wagon
Do you "really need" a GJC?
Quote from: r0tor on April 03, 2017, 05:41:13 PM
Your looking at FWD SUV's which means you don't really need an SUV unless your 60 years old and can't bend down... Might as well get a wagon
If car purchases were based sololy on need, we, including you, would all be in Mitsubishi Mirages, Suzuki SX4s, and Dodge Caravans. Please stop following me with your beer infused bullshit, I don't swing that way.
In fact, this post is the first place I even used the word "need" in the context of this purchase. The opening post clearly states my "wants". :facepalm:
VW's are ticking time bombs anyway
Splurge on an X1 for her. The new one has been beating all comers in comparos I´ve read.
Your size range is kind of wandering all over the place. The Murano and Venza are mid-sized automobiles but you keep nixing anything else mid-sized then complain some of the compacts are too small. I'd just get whatever your wife likes best. Is the V6 that important to her? A CR-V w/ the leather interior, or the Highlander of you want a touch more space and the larger engine, are both really solid rides. Or Subaru if you like a little flavor.
I think the first gen Murano is a great design but I wasn't sold on the follow ups.
Quote from: MexicoCityM3 on April 03, 2017, 08:23:25 PM
Splurge on an X1 for her. The new one has been beating all comers in comparos I´ve read.
That car is a lot less car than what he's looking at. Closer interior room to a Buick Encore rather than a Honda CR-V.
I think the Outback is probably the best choice. Additionally, in the rare Carolina snows, while the rest of your compatriots and crying and dying at the thought of it, you can plough through like you're from a place that actually got snow and you know what you're doing.
Quote from: Lebowski on April 03, 2017, 07:37:03 PM
Do you "really need" a GJC?
I work in the snowiest part of my state and vacation on 4x4 only beaches in NC... yea, I do
Quote from: 12,000 RPM on April 03, 2017, 07:40:37 PM
If car purchases were based sololy on need, we, including you, would all be in Mitsubishi Mirages, Suzuki SX4s, and Dodge Caravans. Please stop following me with your beer infused bullshit, I don't swing that way.
In fact, this post is the first place I even used the word "need" in the context of this purchase. The opening post clearly states my "wants". :facepalm:
Sorry, FWD SUVs are pointless unless your 60yrs old and can't bend over. But go on...
Quote from: r0tor on April 04, 2017, 05:24:53 AM
I work in the snowiest part of my state and vacation on 4x4 only beaches in NC... yea, I do
Seems plenty of people live in snowy areas and survive w/o 4wd.
Didn't know driving on the beach was a need.
Quote from: Raza on April 04, 2017, 04:46:28 AM
I think the Outback is probably the best choice. Additionally, in the rare Carolina snows, while the rest of your compatriots and crying and dying at the thought of it, you can plough through like you're from a place that actually got snow and you know what you're doing.
When it snows the city shuts down and we remote in. I have my SIM rig, freezer chest and home gym.... All I need is a generator and we'll be set.
Quote from: r0tor on April 04, 2017, 05:32:42 AM
Sorry, FWD SUVs are pointless unless your 60yrs old and can't bend over. But go on...
And a Jetta wagon is pointless unless you carry 4x8s and flat screen tv's on your daily commute. What's your point?
Quote from: Lebowski on April 04, 2017, 05:52:37 AM
Seems plenty of people live in snowy areas and survive w/o 4wd.
Didn't know driving on the beach was a need.
If your buying a vehicle that best fits your lifestyle, then it needs to be able to do the things your life requires... The JGC was the best fit at the time -shrug-
Quote from: 12,000 RPM on April 04, 2017, 05:55:57 AM
And a Jetta wagon is pointless unless you carry 4x8s and flat screen tv's on your daily commute. What's your point?
Your the one that seems to think your future kid(s) require a huge ass vehicle... Just suggesting something based on your perceived need
Damn bro - guzzle some beer and lighten up
Quote from: 12,000 RPM on April 03, 2017, 03:51:13 PM
Isn't that what the RDX/Venza/Murano are? :confused:
...Yes. :confused: The post before Raza said:
Quote from: Raza on April 02, 2017, 12:57:02 AM
According to people on this forum, the only reliable cars are a small percentage of Japanese snoozeboxes.
I was replying to him.
Quote from: r0tor on April 04, 2017, 07:34:10 AM
If your buying a vehicle that best fits your lifestyle, then it needs to be able to do the things your life requires... The JGC was the best fit at the time -shrug-
Are there not people for whom a fwd cuv/suv best fits their lifestyle?
Might say, loading a carseat into a small SUV be easier than into a car? Or do you know something all these under 60 fwd SUV owners don't?
Quote from: Lebowski on April 04, 2017, 07:57:49 AM
Are there not people for whom a fwd cuv/suv best fits their lifestyle?
Might say, loading a carseat into a small SUV be easier than into a car? Or do you know something all these under 60 fwd SUV owners don't?
It's easier just keeping the car seat in the car regardless of what it is.
Compared to something like a Jetta wagon, the only benefit of a FWD CUV is seat height. The downsides usually include space, fuel economy, ride comfort, braking, handling, acceleration... almost like it's a minivan that lacks all the usefulness of a minivan (well because fwd CUVs are)
For you, maybe.
You seem to think yourself awfully knowledgeable about what fits others' lifestyles. You don't "need" a JGC any more than a soccermom "needs" a CUV.
I'm thinking r0tor is still drunk
New CRV
- costs the same
- gets better gas mileage
- has better warranty
- is rated to tow
- has more cargo room with seats up and down
- has more passenger room in all dimensions
Not to mention will retain value better and be more reliable
My wife doesn't give a shit about braking or handling, and lol at a crossover being overkill but a minivan being ok. You're delirious with rage bro
Quote from: Lebowski on April 04, 2017, 07:57:49 AM
Are there not people for whom a fwd cuv/suv best fits their lifestyle?
Might say, loading a carseat into a small SUV be easier than into a car? Or do you know something all these under 60 fwd SUV owners don't?
And even if you leave the car seat in (Which I'd rather not do, seems like a convertible seat system would work best for everybody) you still have to load and unload the human in it. Or do you leave the kid in the car r0tor?
Quote from: 12,000 RPM on April 04, 2017, 12:53:37 PM
I'm thinking r0tor is still drunk
New CRV
- costs the same
- gets better gas mileage
- has better warranty
- is rated to tow
- has more cargo room with seats up and down
- has more passenger room in all dimensions
Not to mention will retain value better and be more reliable
My wife doesn't give a shit about braking or handling, and lol at a crossover being overkill but a minivan being ok. You're delirious with rage bro
I kind of got lost in all the back and forth.
Is CRV the front runner now?
I am not a CUV type person but they seem nice. Toyota Rav4 is nice looking too IMHO.
Quote from: SJ_GTI on April 04, 2017, 12:55:56 PM
I kind of got lost in all the back and forth.
Is CRV the front runner now?
I am not a CUV type person but they seem nice. Toyota Rav4 is nice looking too IMHO.
No we haven't started looking yet. Opening volleys will be the Tuscon, RDX and Venza to see what size she likes, and then we will go from there. Just brought up the CRV as its most comparable to r0tor's stupid suggestion. Outback is peak wagon but I'm not interested.
Quote from: r0tor on April 04, 2017, 10:43:19 AM
It's easier just keeping the car seat in the car regardless of what it is.
Compared to something like a Jetta wagon, the only benefit of a FWD CUV is seat height. The downsides usually include space, fuel economy, ride comfort, braking, handling, acceleration... almost like it's a minivan that lacks all the usefulness of a minivan (well because fwd CUVs are)
Don't trivialize seat height - it matters a lot to a big segment of the population, especially the unthusiast segment.
Quote from: 12,000 RPM on April 04, 2017, 12:55:27 PM
And even if you leave the car seat in (Which I'd rather not do, seems like a convertible seat system would work best for everybody) you still have to load and unload the human in it. Or do you leave the kid in the car r0tor?
He leaves the kid in the car.
We're just starting to look at this stuff (and it's changed a lot since my stepson was that small), but it seems the most useful carseats now are the "systems" where you get a base for each car and the seat comes in and out, and can also snap into a stroller. And even if that's not the way you go, you're still reaching in to take the kid in and out ... which I imagine is easier at CUV height than car height and one of the reasons I see all these moms driving CUVs. Maybe they all shoulda consulted with rotor first?
It's hard to argue with the CRV if looking at it objectively, and since your wife doesn't seem to care about much of the subjective stuff that is something you should probably include.
Quote from: Lebowski on April 04, 2017, 01:10:56 PM
It's hard to argue with the CRV if looking at it objectively, and since your wife doesn't seem to care about much of the subjective stuff that is something you should probably include.
The RDX is just a fancy CRV with a bigger engine, right? Sounds like a good choice to me if it's in the price range.
But she doesn't care about power? The CR-V isn't slow. 7.5s 0-60
Quote from: Laconian on April 04, 2017, 02:03:59 PM
But she doesn't care about power? The CR-V isn't slow. 7.5s 0-60
Presumably Sporty will occasionally drive it - he'd probably appreciate the extra power.
The CR-V is also not a bad choice though.
Quote from: r0tor on April 04, 2017, 10:43:19 AM
It's easier just keeping the car seat in the car regardless of what it is.
Compared to something like a Jetta wagon, the only benefit of a FWD CUV is seat height. The downsides usually include space, fuel economy, ride comfort, braking, handling, acceleration... almost like it's a minivan that lacks all the usefulness of a minivan (well because fwd CUVs are)
The Jetta wagon doesn't have great interior room or gas mileage, though. The idea of a wagon is excellent, but the execution isn't always there the few times we happen to get one.
Meh, I just should have went with my original ideas of suggesting an Escalade rolling on dubs with a "BLM" license plate
Quote from: r0tor on April 04, 2017, 03:55:15 PM
Meh, I just should have went with my original ideas of suggesting an Escalade rolling on dubs with a "BLM" license plate
Why bother? You've already demonstrated several times over you're an idiot. Do you get off by perpetually making a fool of yourself?
Quote from: BimmerM3 on April 04, 2017, 02:18:31 PM
Presumably Sporty will occasionally drive it - he'd probably appreciate the extra power.
The CR-V is also not a bad choice though.
Exactly. For me there's also the added value of it not being completely ubiquitous.
Quote from: ifcar on April 04, 2017, 03:18:43 PM
The Jetta wagon doesn't have great interior room or gas mileage, though. The idea of a wagon is excellent, but the execution isn't always there the few times we happen to get one.
Exactly. As much as it hurts enthusiasts to hear the wagon died off for pretty good reason, and was in its death throes long before the crossover's ascendancy.
Quote from: 12,000 RPM on April 04, 2017, 04:15:22 PM
Why bother? You've already demonstrated several times over you're an idiot. Do you get off by perpetually making a fool of yourself?
Ouch, that really hurts bro :cry:
It must for you to continue to follow me around like this. It's gone from funny to sad.
Quote from: 12,000 RPM on April 04, 2017, 04:17:30 PM
Exactly. As much as it hurts enthusiasts to hear the wagon died off for pretty good reason, and was in its death throes long before the crossover's ascendancy.
Well, that's not quite what I said. I said that because the idea of a wagon is good doesn't mean that every wagon is executed well. But at the same time, the fact that the Jetta wagon is flawed doesn't mean that wagons in general are flawed.
Going from a sedan back to a hatch has given me some appreciation for CUV's. They are, after all, just slightly larger and lifted hatchbacks in the end. I would rather stick with the smaller/lower hatchback myself but I can see the appeal to other folks (particularly in comparison to sedans).
What do you guys think about the last gen MKX?
The facelifted one with the 3.7 and waterfall grill. This doesn't have the facelifted grill but it is on 22s
(https://i.ytimg.com/vi/U7Ml-7kp_2I/maxresdefault.jpg)
Decent review from C&D too
http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/2011-lincoln-mkx-road-test-review
But MyFord Touch :(
Probably a much better interior than the Edge. I'd avoid rubber band tires, but I don't live in the south where nice roads exist. :lol:
Quote from: 12,000 RPM on May 19, 2017, 06:19:29 PM
What do you guys think about the last gen MKX?
The facelifted one with the 3.7 and waterfall grill. This doesn't have the facelifted grill but it is on 22s
(https://i.ytimg.com/vi/U7Ml-7kp_2I/maxresdefault.jpg)
Decent review from C&D too
http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/2011-lincoln-mkx-road-test-review
But MyFord Touch :(
Get a facelifted car, not the one pictured here. Old style interior is plasticky.
Also, FWIW, the interior space is not what it seems on those. It's more like a wide Escape.
I'm partial to the MKC, personally. Great-looking car, inside and out. No V6 option, though.
Quote from: 2o6 on May 19, 2017, 06:41:34 PM
Get a facelifted car, not the one pictured here. Old style interior is plasticky.
Also, FWIW, the interior space is not what it seems on those. It's more like a wide Escape.
I had plenty of space in the rear seats. Cargo space might not be huge but it's still a good size. Ford/Lincoln have great seats too. Wifey should like that.
Also do your research for transmission issues. My friend replaces them all the time. I don't think it's a design flaw or something, but they don't hold up well to slightly higher than average abuse. If your wife is one of those type of people that could be considered hard on her vehicles you may want to steer clear.
She has been getting 2-3 MPG better than me in the G. Transmission issues would suck though. But we had decent luck with the VW, so why not roll the dice on a Ford :lol:
That MyTouch shit could be a deal breaker though, especially in comparison to the Nissan/Infiniti infotainment.... which is a little old in the tooth, but so far dead reliable and easy to use. C&D was talking about how it froze on them during their test.... maybe they have updated the firmware but that shit shouldn't even be necessary. And there are no buttons in the center console either. We'd def have to play with one. I do the "lets connect my phone through BT" test whenever I can.
SYNC was the reason why I didn't buy a Focus or Fiesta.
It sucked ass
They make them without it. Speaking of which, they make the Edge with the 3.7 and no SYNC, but it's pretty low rent. Bummer as I'd love that extra 60HP over the Murano. Venza and Murano it is.
What about an Acadia?
Quote from: 12,000 RPM on May 20, 2017, 05:01:06 PM
They make them without it. Speaking of which, they make the Edge with the 3.7 and no SYNC, but it's pretty low rent. Bummer as I'd love that extra 60HP over the Murano. Venza and Murano it is.
The 3.7L Edge was the Sport trim and it was not available without MFT. Wasn't the low rent model (sat between base and the top trim). The earlier Sport trim (pre-'11) may have been available with just SYNC 1 (non MFT version), but that one only got the 3.5L.
Quote from: MX793 on May 20, 2017, 05:12:01 PM
The 3.7L Edge was the Sport trim and it was not available without MFT. Wasn't the low rent model (sat between base and the top trim). The earlier Sport trim (pre-'11) may have been available with just SYNC 1 (non MFT version), but that one only got the 3.5L.
Oh yea, you're right. Still, the 3.5 in the facelifted one is a good 45HP up on the Murano. It's also better to drive dynamically.
Quote from: giant_mtb on May 20, 2017, 05:02:22 PM
What about an Acadia?
Nah, I'm not a fan of 3 row crossovers. Aside from the Highlander & Explorer they are all really ugly, and they all have useless back seats and cargo space (either one or the other). If we ever need 3 rows, and we'd be so fucked if we did, I'd just get a minivan. I like the Sedona, Pacifica and even the Quest, at least visually.
Quote from: 12,000 RPM on May 20, 2017, 06:17:09 PM
. I like the Sedona, Pacifica and even the Quest, at least visually.
ew, the Yota and Odyssey are better. They do have a hybrid plugin Pacifica coming, do 30miles every day without using gas. But it's 100% functional for long trips- same as the regular but weighs 600lbs more and doesn't have stow&go for 2nd row.
I know the Odyssey is probably better overall and is fun o drive for the segment... but I find them to be pretty ugly. Toyota has nothing going for it but "dependability". Blah. I need to get something back from the ownership experience besides transportation.
It's a shame we don't get the smaller minivans but the Venza is close enough :lol:
Mazda 5 with 3rd pedal. Would be fun building a mazda speed version....
Quote from: 12,000 RPM on May 20, 2017, 06:17:09 PM
Nah, I'm not a fan of 3 row crossovers. Aside from the Highlander & Explorer they are all really ugly, and they all have useless back seats and cargo space (either one or the other). If we ever need 3 rows, and we'd be so fucked if we did, I'd just get a minivan. I like the Sedona, Pacifica and even the Quest, at least visually.
Fair points.
I don't know that a 3 row would fit in our garage nicely either. I'm actually going to have to rearrange some stuff in there to fit both cars in the winter.
Like I said in the Rabbit thread.... it's totaled.... timeline has been compressed significantly. Gonna look at the Venza and Murano. Given wifey's dislike of the G's navi we might be leaning more towards the Venza. I want to look at a CR-V and the Sportage as well. They're about as fast as the Accord 2.4 which I thought was fine for the street.
I can't shake the MKX. I was thinking about the Focus wagon we had in Europe.... it had MyFord Touch and it worked really well. Granted, it had knobs for HVAC and volume, but I think a lot of the time I used the steering wheel controls (for audio). A lot of the complaints were from when it first came out; they did some upgrades that fixed the stability issues. I'm gonna check one out
Don't buy or not buy a car based on the infotainment. The worst that can be said of the worst is they're too idiosyncratic and not intuitive enough, which is a moot issue after a couple weeks/months of ownership. Get the car you want.
We didn't buy cars in the 90s based on how easy it was to set the clock and radio channels.
Quote from: 12,000 RPM on May 26, 2017, 08:50:18 PM
I can't shake the MKX. I was thinking about the Focus wagon we had in Europe.... it had MyFord Touch and it worked really well. Granted, it had knobs for HVAC and volume, but I think a lot of the time I used the steering wheel controls (for audio). A lot of the complaints were from when it first came out; they did some upgrades that fixed the stability issues. I'm gonna check one out
What year was the Focus? Ford rolled out SYNC 3 starting in 2016. While outwardly similar to MFT, it is built on a completely different architecture, both HW and SW (no longer MSFT based). I've yet to hear many complaints about SYNC 3.
There have been a number of updates to MFT to try to address consumer complaints. Consensus is that it got much better by the end of it's run, but never great (hence why SYNC 3 essentially started from scratch on a totally different OS).
I don't remember what year the Focus was. We went last fall, so it may have been a 15 or a 16. I didn't check. The reason I think it's a 15 is because all the pictures I'm seeing of SYNC3 look like this:
(https://owner.ford.com/content/dam/assets/ford/how-tos/sync-technology/sync-3/applink/overview-of-sync-3-and-applink/how-to-use-applink-with-sync-3-2022.jpg)
and the Focus definitely looked like this:
(http://www.laptopmag.com/images/wp/purch-api/incontent/2012/03/MyFord-Touch-update-screen.jpg)
I don't know if SYNC3 has the old skin available, and the Focus definitely didn't have the capacitive touch fake button bullshit, but I remember it being really good. Probably among the best of the systems I've used. The MKX is half a step above the rest in refinement and content as well for the same money. Definitely have to check it out.
OK, so we just got back. Cliffs, we're getting an MKX. Drove the Murano, Venza, Edge and obviously MKX. Common themes.... these all feel a bit big, but I think they are right sized. Rear visibility on all of them sucked. None of them felt slow, but none were like "OMG nice!". I can only imagine how miserable something this size would be with a lumpy ass 2.0T. I think all the mainstreamers had a surprising amount of scuttle shake, at least compared to the G and MKX. Maybe that was just rattles.
Edge Limited- Not bad IMO. Good dynamics, good ride quality. Still crazy floaty boaty compared to the G obviously. My Ford Touch works OK. A little convoluted, but *almost* everything worked. Wifey's problem with it.... it felt cheap + mainstreamish after spending a month in the G. Mind you this was the top trim. She didn't even bother test driving it. Side note, the rear view camera image was upside down :wtf:
Murano- Very similar to the Edge. A little worse of a drive IMO. The CVT + engine combo feel slightly strained here compared to the Max. Obviously didn't have the same magic. I preferred the Edge's drivetrain. Overall the interior felt very cheap. In pictures it looks exactly like the G, but in real life all the materials are cheaper. Also this version had no navigation and wifey was put off by the low res screen (she is a graphic designer).
Venza- Interesting. We drove an older one with no nav. Highlights of it were the drivetrain... best of probably all of the ones we drove today to be honest. Handled OK. Problem was the interior. Again felt cheap. Also, with those big ass stock 22s, there was a lot of tire roar. The ride was a good bit choppier too over the exact same route. It was a bit more buttoned down than the rest but hardly heads and shoulders above the rest.... the dynamic gains were not worth the ride quality/NVH losses.
*leave shitty dealership, drive to CarMax*
MKX- As mentioned best of the bunch. OK, it's obviously a dolled up Edge, but that's not the end of the world. I liked how the Edge drove. MKX addresses pretty much everything else I didn't like. As soon as you step in it just feels nicer. A little less road noise. All the touch surfaces are nicer obviously. Better stereo. Doesn't have as much pep as the Edge but it gets out of its own way. I think the Edge might have been FWD. Wifey really liked it. It feels nicer and is more relaxing to drive. She also liked the interior color (kind of a greyish-beige with brown piping on the seats). My only gripe is the dash is angled in a way that generates a lot of glare when the sun is high. I didn't mention it though and I don't think she noticed. Also this one is not top of the line.... no moonroof, no adaptive cruise. Would have been nice and there's a black on black one with all the bells and whistles but neither of us want another black on black car in this hot sunny ass Southern climate. It's too hot and roads are too fast for window/sunroof open driving anyway. Other than that, not bad. So we're gonna pick it up tomorrow. I like the exterior color.... it's a burgundy with a nice flake. Wifey is meh on it though.
So now all that's left is the Civic.....
Cool!
Thanks, I just hope Submariner and MCM will forgive me.
I assume this is the last gen MKX? Also the Venza never had 22" wheels from the factory, but I have heard the ride/road noise is bad either way.
Congrats.
Also:
Quote from: 68_427 on March 26, 2017, 10:13:00 PM
I'll also second the latest Gen Edge/MKX. FoMoCo makes amazingly comfortable seats
https://www.cargurus.com/Cars/inventorylisting/viewDetailsFilterViewInventoryListing.action?sourceContext=forSaleTab_false_0&formSourceTag=112&newSearchFromOverviewPage=true&inventorySearchWidgetType=AUTO&entitySelectingHelper.selectedEntity=c24509&entitySelectingHelper.selectedEntity2=&zip=14468&distance=50000&searchChanged=true&modelChanged=true&filtersModified=true&sortType=undefined&sortDirection=undefined#listing=153113086
https://www.cargurus.com/Cars/inventorylisting/viewDetailsFilterViewInventoryListing.action?sourceContext=carGurusHomePage_false_0&formSourceTag=112&newSearchFromOverviewPage=true&inventorySearchWidgetType=AUTO&entitySelectingHelper.selectedEntity=c24820&entitySelectingHelper.selectedEntity2=&zip=14468&distance=50000&searchChanged=true&modelChanged=false&filtersModified=true#listing=169945683_isFeatured
What do I win? :lol:
Strange about the Edge's rear camera image. Suggests to me that the camera was removed and put back in upside down...might have been an accident at the rear end at some point.
Anyways, congrats!
Thanks. After spending a day with it, some more thoughts.
- My Ford Lincoln Touch is OK. Not the best, but livable. Truthfully, aside from the lack of buttons, better than the G. More responsive. I thought about the RX350, but the infotainment in that is even worse with that mouse. Wifey hates that control wheel shit, she likes touch screens and buttons.
- I know "real" luxury isn't feature content, but I do love all the features. Heated + cooled seats, remote start, power liftgate, heat*ed steering wheel, auto lights and wipers + all the base luxury shit. It's a very convenient ride. Way better loaded than the G which itself is fully loaded.
- For all the hemming and hawing about "lazy rebadges".... this thing was def worth the premium over a top of the line Edge. This was $39K new; Edge Limited was $35K new. The upgrades to the interior and the better stereo are easily worth that $4K and I'm sure there's stuff I'm missing.
- Road noise is a little higher than I'd like but we will look into quieter tires once it's time to replace them.
- I'm still slightly reeling over getting my first American car. I mean I'm not that skeeved out.... obviously we bought it. It's as nice as any 2nd tier foreign luxury brand and I know the mechanicals are solid. But if you had asked me even 5 years ago if I ever thought I'd buy an American car I'd probably have laughed. But the quality and value, particularly used, are kind of hard to ignore.
Overall though I'm happy and more importantly wifey is happy.
Yeah I can't imagine you buying a Lincoln of all things. Congrats though
Congratulations. The MKX was on our short list and we even considered the Edge Sport 2.7 Twin Turbos.
What engine is it?
Enjoy.
I think it's their corporate 3.5 N/A motor. Gets the job done. Wifey is a sane driver so it's more than enough. Truthfully a CR-V or something would have been enough, but that would have been louder and less refined. Ours is an old one- 2011 (cue Dave Ramsey groans). But wifey doesn't drive much (10K/yr) and the Rabbit was the same age when we bought it... and this thing is in much better shape.
Quote from: 12,000 RPM on May 29, 2017, 11:18:06 AM
I think it's their corporate 3.5 N/A motor. Gets the job done. Wifey is a sane driver so it's more than enough. Truthfully a CR-V or something would have been enough, but that would have been louder and less refined. Ours is an old one- 2011 (cue Dave Ramsey groans). But wifey doesn't drive much (10K/yr) and the Rabbit was the same age when we bought it... and this thing is in much better shape.
2011 was a pretty good year for the MKX, I believe they got the slightly bigger 3.7 L engine. The styling, imo, is also more distinctive than the more current models, especially the rear...don't like the tail light assembly on the new models.
Best of luck with it.
Congrats. Pics.
Quote from: FoMoJo on May 29, 2017, 11:28:35 AM
2011 was a pretty good year for the MKX, I believe they got the slightly bigger 3.7 L engine. The styling, imo, is also more distinctive than the more current models, especially the rear...don't like the tail light assembly on the new models.
Best of luck with it.
Yeah, if it's a post-facelift 1st gen, it has the 3.7. The 3.5 is a good motor, too, but I'm really partial to the 3.7. Super flat torque curve.
Quote from: MexicoCityM3 on May 29, 2017, 11:45:09 AM
Congrats. Pics.
(http://i.imgur.com/ZXBmJ4Z.jpg?1)
(http://i.imgur.com/2QXYtKD.jpg)
(http://i.imgur.com/UJxCO0q.jpg)
(http://i.imgur.com/ke7KNkO.jpg)
(http://i.imgur.com/FM1DySm.jpg?1)
Quote from: FoMoJo on May 29, 2017, 11:28:35 AM
2011 was a pretty good year for the MKX, I believe they got the slightly bigger 3.7 L engine. The styling, imo, is also more distinctive than the more current models, especially the rear...don't like the tail light assembly on the new models.
Best of luck with it.
Yea the pre-facelift versions of my gen is pretty awful looking as well. I do like the current one though. Tail lights aside it looks like it was a big step forward in all important attributes for the segment.
Nice color.
Slick ride.
Most complaints about GM/Ford cars are specific - the terrible DCT in Focuses for example. I don't think I've ever heard anything bad about Lincoln.
CR has it all over the map. It does look like the transmission can get out of sorts but other than that it's OK.
Infotainment gets dinged big time but I think a lot of that is just from old people who don't understand technology. Again I find this system a good bit easier to use than iDrive for example.
Does the Bluetooth work? I seem to remember you having some old man issues with BT... :lol:
In the BMW, yea, shit was wonky. It works great in the MKX though. Speaking of which, I need to run a sweep on the stereo and see how it sounds. It's THX certified :pee: I'm going to bet this thing's stereo sounds better than the one in the G too (at least till I get my subs)
Congratulations! I had a rental MKX a few years ago and drove it on a long interstate trip with the family. I liked it a lot. I especially like the color you got. I remember thinking it felt very similar to my Buick Enclave, just with a smaller footprint. I'm sure the Ford/Lincoln Touch is better than what Buick offers. How many miles on it and what kind of warranty did it come with? Did finance try to get you to buy an extended warranty? I'm assuming it's a certified used car.
The G37 stereo is shit - classic Bose crappiness - I'm sure the MKX tops it there.
I'm happy you made good on your contrarianness this time. Last time you were talking up the 200 before going totally basic with the G. ;)
Congrats!
I dig that coloure.
Quote from: veeman on May 29, 2017, 04:01:52 PM
Congratulations! I had a rental MKX a few years ago and drove it on a long interstate trip with the family. I liked it a lot. I especially like the color you got. I remember thinking it felt very similar to my Buick Enclave, just with a smaller footprint. I'm sure the Ford/Lincoln Touch is better than what Buick offers. How many miles on it and what kind of warranty did it come with? Did finance try to get you to buy an extended warranty? I'm assuming it's a certified used car.
We bought from Carmax. Easily the nicest financed purchase experience I've had. No warranty but I am considering it. It has 75K miles I think, but again wifey drives like 10K/year, and that has included some mega road trips we probably won't be taking this year. So we'll see.
Quote from: Laconian on May 29, 2017, 06:24:33 PM
The G37 stereo is shit - classic Bose crappiness - I'm sure the MKX tops it there.
I'm happy you made good on your contrarianness this time. Last time you were talking up the 200 before going totally basic with the G. ;)
It wasn't driven by bravery or trolling sadly. Just the best value for the money and what we wanted. If there were a 200 based crossover (aka what the 200 should have been in the first place) we definitely would have went that way :devil:
Quote from: 12,000 RPM on May 29, 2017, 07:25:06 PM
If there were a 200 based crossover (aka what the 200 should have been in the first place) we definitely would have went that way :devil:
You mean like the Cherokee?
What modz are in store for it?
I was honestly thinking about 20s and the Edge Sport suspension until I actually drove it. No way. Put that money into the G and the bike
I think it needs some coilovers
All I think it needs are better brakes and tires. But for what it is it's pretty solid out of the box
Very nice, congrats.
Looks good! I'll also echo the comments about the color, and I agree that the pre-facelift was not a good look.
New pads would probably help the brakes a lot. Most people get crap pads because they don't want dust or squeals.
Congrats on the purchase.
I have to ask, what are the finance terms on a vehicle that's 6 years old and 75k miles?
They def go a long way
Got some alone time with it.... for what it is it's really not bad; there's actually decent feel through the wheel with load and the lean + squish helps communicate. AWD lets you mat it pretty nicely out of corners too. And the manual shift is surprisingly competent (though it's a stupid rocker button on the lever). Chassis could def be stiffer though. That would actually go a long way to helping with the luxury feel by damping road noise and impacts. Stereo is on equal footing with the G IMO.... not as bright but the highs are overboosted. I imagine the baseline frequency response looks like this: V.
Waiting to see if the gas mileage is truly as bad as the EPA claims (17/23 :( ) Can't figure out how to see the average.
Quote from: MrH on May 30, 2017, 12:42:38 PM
Congrats on the purchase.
I have to ask, what are the finance terms on a vehicle that's 6 years old and 75k miles?
2.4% APR for 60 months.
Quote from: MX793 on May 29, 2017, 07:43:12 PM
Quote from: 12,000 RPM on May 29, 2017, 07:25:06 PM
If there were a 200 based crossover (aka what the 200 should have been in the first place) we definitely would have went that way :devil:
You mean like the Cherokee?
:lol:
Quote from: 12,000 RPM on May 30, 2017, 12:46:21 PM
They def go a long way
Got some alone time with it.... for what it is it's really not bad; there's actually decent feel through the wheel with load and the lean + squish helps communicate. AWD lets you mat it pretty nicely out of corners too. And the manual shift is surprisingly competent (though it's a stupid rocker button on the lever). Chassis could def be stiffer though. That would actually go a long way to helping with the luxury feel by damping road noise and impacts. Stereo is on equal footing with the G IMO.... not as bright but the highs are overboosted. I imagine the baseline frequency response looks like this: V.
Waiting to see if the gas mileage is truly as bad as the EPA claims (17/23 :( ) Can't figure out how to see the average.2.4% APR for 60 months.
If you're going to mat it out of the corners, you're not going to get EPA mileage. :lol: Presumably, your wife has a gentler foot on the gas pedal.
Quote from: MX793 on May 29, 2017, 07:43:12 PM
You mean like the Cherokee?
Well I'll be damned. They are on the same platform.
Trail Rated 200! :rockon:
FCA has like two platforms to their name. Everything they make is a wide Fiat Bravo.
Yea I was gonna say, "Damn it, you're right"
I wonder how much a Chrysler version with zero off road pretense would weigh. Who is really buying a brand new Cherokee to take to MOAB
I'll let you know how many I see next time I'm down there. And if they're on a trail or in the motel parking lot. :lol:
Looks nice.
:cheers:
Wow wouldn't have guessed this. Congrats man, it looks great. I really like the wood and the color
Quote from: 12,000 RPM on May 27, 2017, 04:06:09 PM
Thanks, I just hope Submariner and MCM will forgive me.
:nono:
Quote from: Submariner on April 23, 2017, 11:55:46 AM
... it feels like hack luxury - like some Mediterranean-themed banquet hall with a plug-in fountain in the lobby and a "continental buffet" for breakfast. "Look at that big screen! We need one of those! And look at the seats in that A8! lift em' straight out and stick them in here!" There is an enormous difference between something that looks nice and something that feels it, and that is where the G90 MKX falls woefully short. I can only imagine how the chassis and driving dynamics line up relative to Lexus, Jaguar and the Germans if the most overt part of the car is a 2nd rate affair.
Quote from: 12,000 RPM on May 30, 2017, 12:46:21 PM
2.4% APR for 60 months.
Please tell me you plan on putting insurance money from the rabbit and/or the civic money towards this thing. I can't imagine paying on a car note in 2023 for a car that's 11 years old.
Congrats!
(I hate the nose but the rest of it looks great!)
Quote from: MrH on May 30, 2017, 03:04:30 PM
Please tell me you plan on putting insurance money from the rabbit and/or the civic money towards this thing. I can't imagine paying on a car note in 2023 for a car that's 11 years old.
Oh yea, we put a good bit down and we'll be paying extra. I just like the flexibility of a longer note. If you want though I can pm you my PayPal email so you can help me pay it off faster :ohyeah:
:lol:
Nice ride. I remember really liking the Edge when I test drove it back when I bought my Jeep. I ended up passing on it though because of the weak awd.
Thanks. Wifey is really happy and I think it's doing like 20-22MPG under her control. Not far off from the Rabbit sadly :facepalm: MKX is definitely worth the $$$ over the Edge though, I was honestly shocked at the difference sitting in them back to back. If they had put more effort into differentiating the center stack it would feel like a completely different car.
That's decent fuel economy for a car of that size/power. The G37 has no excuse for its numbers. ;)
Yeah 20-22 doesn't seem to bad for a vehicle that size. I was getting ~22 MPG on my Golf during the winter. Getting ~23-24 now that the weather is warm, but that might drop if/when I start using the AC come July/August.
That seems low for a Golf. Or Rabbit. Decent for an MKX though.
Quote from: giant_mtb on June 09, 2017, 08:40:45 AM
That seems low for a Golf. Or Rabbit. Decent for an MKX though.
Low 20s sounds about right for a 5-banger VW. In pure suburban driving (45 mph or less, some stop and go), I've seen multiple tanks under 20, and I drive the VW much less aggressively than my Mustang. I barely keep up with traffic.
That's pathetic.
Quote from: giant_mtb on June 09, 2017, 08:40:45 AM
That seems low for a Golf. Or Rabbit. Decent for an MKX though.
5 bangers are the worst of both worlds. Fuel economy of a 6 cylinder, power of a 4 banger. And it had an iron block and took 6 quarts of VW approved oil :facepalm:
It was a good little car though. We definitely got our money's worth
Quote from: CaminoRacer on June 09, 2017, 09:13:13 AM
That's pathetic.
The 3.7 VQ gets 17-18mpg for tasty tasty 92 octane around town. :cry:
Quote from: Laconian on June 09, 2017, 11:33:42 AM
The 3.7 VQ gets 17-18mpg for tasty tasty 92 octane around town. :cry:
Damn, that's low! Explorer averages around 17, but at least I get to use regular.
I get like 15 mpg so...
Quote from: SVT_Power on June 09, 2017, 11:51:12 AM
I get like 15 mpg so...
In the Sorento? Or did you get something else?
That's with lots of stop and go and like no highway.
Quote from: BimmerM3 on June 09, 2017, 11:52:15 AM
In the Sorento? Or did you get something else?
Sorento.
I also get (for the model) pretty low mileage on the bike as well, so I'm just assuming it's me not the machine :lol:
You must weigh 1000 pounds! Too much gainz bro!
Quote from: Laconian on June 09, 2017, 11:33:42 AM
The 3.7 VQ gets 17-18mpg for tasty tasty 92 octane around town. :cry:
But it's got a very healthy amount of power. What's highway mpg? Should be torquey enough to have a nice overdrive gear and get mid 20s like a Corvette
Highway is like 29-30. If you have fun, maybe 27?
Quote from: Laconian on June 09, 2017, 11:59:28 AM
You must weigh 1000 pounds! Too much gainz bro!
I wish mang
Quote from: Laconian on June 09, 2017, 12:04:23 PM
Highway is like 29-30. If you have fun, maybe 27?
Sounds right. The miracle of 6 speed transmissions.
Miata is averaging 32+ in mixed driving beating the ever-living snot out of it. Highway only I'm getting 40ish.
I'm getting 34 on this tank with mixed driving. All time high is 39.
Quote from: Laconian on June 09, 2017, 12:04:23 PM
Highway is like 29-30. If you have fun, maybe 27?
That's still not great. My 3.7 Mustang got ~22 around town and 33-35 on the highway. I only recall 1 tank that I got under 20 on and that had 2 autocross events on it.
I'm getting around 31MPG constantly. If I keep it all freeway at about 75MPH it'll do 36MPG.
Quote from: MX793 on June 09, 2017, 01:16:26 PM
That's still not great. My 3.7 Mustang got ~22 around town and 33-35 on the highway. I only recall 1 tank that I got under 20 on and that had 2 autocross events on it.
Yeah, I never said it was. It's a thirsty engine. That's why I'm impressed that SportyTownCar is getting 22mpg on a bulky AWD car.
Quote from: Laconian on June 09, 2017, 01:29:56 PM
Yeah, I never said it was. It's a thirsty engine. That's why I'm impressed that SportyTownCar is getting 22mpg on a bulky AWD car.
For the power and grunt they make, Ford's 3.7 is surprisingly frugal.
The VQ has always got less than great gas mileage.
I think the Ford 3.7's efficiency is very application dependent. I looked at the 3.7L Mazda 6 for about 10 seconds and was instantly turned off by the gas mileage. This makes no sense:
(http://i.imgur.com/WvrTfLL.png)
Quote from: 12,000 RPM on June 09, 2017, 01:45:19 PM
The VQ has always got less than great gas mileage.
I think the Ford 3.7's efficiency is very application dependent. I looked at the 3.7L Mazda 6 for about 10 seconds and was instantly turned off by the gas mileage. This makes no sense:
(http://i.imgur.com/WvrTfLL.png)
All that
ZOOM ZOOM must take more gas :huh:.
Quote from: 12,000 RPM on June 09, 2017, 01:45:19 PM
The VQ has always got less than great gas mileage.
I think the Ford 3.7's efficiency is very application dependent. I looked at the 3.7L Mazda 6 for about 10 seconds and was instantly turned off by the gas mileage. This makes no sense:
(http://i.imgur.com/WvrTfLL.png)
It's probably a matter of improvements with time. The 2009 Fusion, with a 3.0-liter V6, is also rated for 20 mpg. I expect there were some improvements before 2012.
Quote from: 12,000 RPM on June 09, 2017, 01:45:19 PM
The VQ has always got less than great gas mileage.
I think the Ford 3.7's efficiency is very application dependent. I looked at the 3.7L Mazda 6 for about 10 seconds and was instantly turned off by the gas mileage. This makes no sense:
(http://i.imgur.com/WvrTfLL.png)
The version of the 3.7 that Mazda used in the 6 and CX-9 only had VVT on the intake cam (i-VCT). It also made less power (only ~270-275, IIRC). FoMoCo products of the same vintage ('08-'10) also used the i-VCT motor and similarly made ~270-275 hp. In 2011, Ford introduced the 300-305 hp version with VVT on the exhaust cam as well (Ti-VCT). All FoMoCo products transitioned to the new Ti-VCT version of the motor, but Mazda never made the upgrade. The Ti-VCT version returned better fuel efficiency to go with the increase in power. The 3.7 FWD MKZ with the Ti-VCT motor returns 2 mpg better than the 3.7 Mazda6.
Quote from: MX793 on June 09, 2017, 08:48:40 AM
Low 20s sounds about right for a 5-banger VW. In pure suburban driving (45 mph or less, some stop and go), I've seen multiple tanks under 20, and I drive the VW much less aggressively than my Mustang. I barely keep up with traffic.
Ahhhh 5-cylz. I was assuming 4-bangers, for which those numbers seemed oddly low.
Is there something about 5 cylinder engines that inherently make them inefficient? Or was that specific engine just poorly designed?
Quote from: BimmerM3 on June 09, 2017, 02:56:32 PM
Is there something about 5 cylinder engines that inherently make them inefficient? Or was that specific engine just poorly designed?
I think this engine is just really poorly designed. They shouldn't be inherently worse than a 6 cylinder of similar size and output.
Quote from: BimmerM3 on June 09, 2017, 02:56:32 PM
Is there something about 5 cylinder engines that inherently make them inefficient? Or was that specific engine just poorly designed?
My guess is a combination of misapplication and naturally being in between a 4 and 6. As sporty mentioned, you get the fuel economy of a 6 with not much more power than a 4. I imagine there's a reason 5-cyls aren't all that common across the board.
They're longer than I4s or V6es, which makes them harder to situate for transverse configurations.
And not powerful or smooth enough for the typical RWD application. 3 bangers make more sense to have in a manufacturer's toolbox. Actually, a turbo 3cyl in the Rabbit would have been kind of cool.
Quote from: 12,000 RPM on June 09, 2017, 03:50:07 PM
And not powerful or smooth enough for the typical RWD application. 3 bangers make more sense to have in a manufacturer's toolbox. Actually, a turbo 3cyl in the Rabbit would have been kind of cool.
5's smoother than a 3, though harder to package.
Quote from: giant_mtb on June 09, 2017, 03:01:47 PM
My guess is a combination of misapplication and naturally being in between a 4 and 6. As sporty mentioned, you get the fuel economy of a 6 with not much more power than a 4. I imagine there's a reason 5-cyls aren't all that common across the board.
Really, it's displacement rather than number of cylinders that primarily drives fuel consumption. I would expect most any 2.5L engine, be it 4, 5, or 6 cylinders, to get about the same fuel economy when put in vehicles of similar weight, aero, and gearing.
Quote from: MX793 on June 09, 2017, 04:04:20 PM
Really, it's displacement rather than number of cylinders that primarily drives fuel consumption. I would expect most any 2.5L engine, be it 4, 5, or 6 cylinders, to get about the same fuel economy when put in vehicles of similar weight, aero, and gearing.
I suppose, yeah.
As to the turdliness of VW's 2.5, I chalk it up to VW throwing together a slap-dash engine effort to please North American consumers. When the MkV platform came out in the mid 00s, the 1970s-era 8v 2.slow had already demonstrated that it was woefully outmatched by everyone else's 1.8-2.0L engines and inadequate as a base motor in cars marketed as a bit more upmarket than your typical Corolla or Civic, let alone the larger 2.3-2.5L 4s that were being used as the upgrade engine in compacts or as the base engine in midsize offerings. the 1.8T was being retired, didn't have a great reputation in the US (timing belt issues), and was more expensive than a base motor should be. VW needed a new, inexpensive entry level motor with sufficient power and grunt to satisfy American preferences. They had pretty much been neglecting naturally aspirated motor development in favor of diesels and small, turbo engines for their smaller cars. So they slapped an extra cylinder on their 2.0L I4 and borrowed the basic head design from their V10 and built a 2.5L I5 motor. I blame the lackluster fuel economy and specific output that would have been considered average circa 1995 (for the early motors, at least) on the fact that VW simply didn't invest much in developing the engine.
Quote from: 12,000 RPM on June 09, 2017, 03:50:07 PM
And not powerful or smooth enough for the typical RWD application. 3 bangers make more sense to have in a manufacturer's toolbox. Actually, a turbo 3cyl in the Rabbit would have been kind of cool.
I think the 2.5L isn't all dissimilar to the 2.slow. Just a four valve per cyl design
Quote from: Tave on June 09, 2017, 12:57:04 PM
Miata is averaging 32+ in mixed driving beating the ever-living snot out of it. Highway only I'm getting 40ish.
I got 28mpg all day long doing the same to my gen1 Miata.
Our Subies (97 and 05) get long-term 23mpg driving to work mixed-highway. I get 16-18 in the Odyssey city and 26highway. All using cheapest gasssss available.
Quote from: MX793 on June 09, 2017, 05:07:16 PM
As to the turdliness of VW's 2.5, I chalk it up to VW throwing together a slap-dash engine effort to please North American consumers. When the MkV platform came out in the mid 00s, the 1970s-era 8v 2.slow had already demonstrated that it was woefully outmatched by everyone else's 1.8-2.0L engines and inadequate as a base motor in cars marketed as a bit more upmarket than your typical Corolla or Civic, let alone the larger 2.3-2.5L 4s that were being used as the upgrade engine in compacts or as the base engine in midsize offerings. the 1.8T was being retired, didn't have a great reputation in the US (timing belt issues), and was more expensive than a base motor should be. VW needed a new, inexpensive entry level motor with sufficient power and grunt to satisfy American preferences. They had pretty much been neglecting naturally aspirated motor development in favor of diesels and small, turbo engines for their smaller cars. So they slapped an extra cylinder on their 2.0L I4 and borrowed the basic head design from their V10 and built a 2.5L I5 motor. I blame the lackluster fuel economy and specific output that would have been considered average circa 1995 (for the early motors, at least) on the fact that VW simply didn't invest much in developing the engine.
You are a wealth of knowledge.
Controversial hot take: MKX def has better steering feel than the G. I leaned on it a little today getting groceries and was surprised with the info the wheel was giving. Pretty damn granular. The Z also had pretty muted steering on UHP summer tires, so I think it's just an FM thing. In the G I often find the limit of the front tires by accident.... Z gave me no feedback so approaching the limit was just an act of faith. But it's good to know that in an emergency maneuver I won't be searching in the dark for what's happening with the front tires :ohyeah:
I think your G needs better tires.
It was not much better on the Z with summer tires. New tires are on the horizon though.
Quote from: 12,000 RPM on June 10, 2017, 03:45:16 PM
It was not much better on the Z with summer tires. New tires are on the horizon though.
Bridgestone RE-71R
No, we have been through this. DWS06, or maybe the P Zero AS.