Lets talk SUV's

  • Thread starter Thread starter JCE
  • 92 comments
  • 10,239 views
Tribeca? The Flying V****a? Oh... yeah, they fixed the looks... but still not something I'd consider desirable... not up against, say a CX9.

A CX9 which is thirsty as all hell, huge as a bus and which sounds and feels wonderful to drive.

Or a CX7. Turbo-four is also a guzzler, but at least it's entertaining.

My beef with the Forester is that they still need to give it the running shoes to match the power.

Land Cruiser: Expensive. Expensive. Expensive.
 
Being swedish I am required by law to at least mention the Volvo XC90. I know it's a chinese company now but they are still built in Sweden.
 
Last edited:
-> ...
niky
][/B]My beef with the Forester is that they still need to give it the running shoes to match the power.
Click to expand...
^ Nothing like a good set of tires to match its fun-inducing power. On which even a slight tire upgrade will still be cheaper compared to the MINI and the Juke.

demon_tweaks_subaru_forester_2_5xt_gallery_2006_subaru_forester_2_5xt_image_0011_cd_gallery.jpg


:sly:
 
Do they have the Forester S-Edition over there?

2011-Subaru-Forester-S-Edition-Exterior.jpg


Granted the STi wheels look a bit chintzy on something as high-riding as that but you can't argue with 260 Boxer horsies. WRX engine and (sadly) WRX STi 5-speed paddleshift. More power and a quicker 0-60 than the XT along with a better gearbox.
 
Last edited:
Murcie_LP640
Do they have the Forester S-Edition over there?

subaru-forester-s-edition-1-big.jpg


Granted the STi wheels look a bit chintzy on something as high-riding as that but you can't argue with 260 Boxer horsies. WRX engine and (sadly) WRX STi 5-speed paddleshift. More power and a quicker 0-60 than the XT along with a better gearbox.
Click to expand...

We don't get that.
 
-> ...
eSZee
Doesn't look too bad. I would still pick the 2004-2005 over any.

Tarmac01.jpg
Click to expand...
^ [X] [X] [X] (wrong buzzer) -> May look nice and all; but stupid Subaru didn't offer M/T on any spool-powered Foresters, on which is epic fail in my book. :indiff:

-> My take on the Forester by year:

04-05 - Really nice and cheap for what it is. But that 210-215hp might seem anemic compared to this one...

06-07 - Yup this one produces more POWWA at 228-233hp. But as what Niky said both of these SG Foresters needs a little more meat on its tires.

08-current - Its a really nice piece of CUV. But, the lack of M/T really turns me off to the highest degree.

S-Edition - Unfortunately to us guys in the US, we don't get the juiciest Forester...

...Wait! Didn't this happened before!?

The STi
foresterdrift.jpg


forestersti.jpg


^ Doh! :ouch:
 
I'm not too worried about the Mini's maintenance costs when you consider the Infinity FX probably is more.

Again, no on the Land Cruiser. And the Forester XT in the spec I'd want is going to be hard to find. My only complaint is the interior is very bland and blah. I just hope my fiancée likes it.

The strange thing to all of this is I'm tempted to look at the VW Touareg. But it's on the list of expensive German premium vehicles list. lol
 
^ So which is now your final 3?

I'm hoping...
- Ford Flex Ecoboost
- Subaru Forester 2.5XT (SG '06-'07)
- Toyota Sequoia SR5 (2G)

;)
 
JCE
I'm not too worried about the Mini's maintenance costs when you consider the Infinity FX probably is more.

Again, no on the Land Cruiser. And the Forester XT in the spec I'd want is going to be hard to find. My only complaint is the interior is very bland and blah. I just hope my fiancée likes it.

The strange thing to all of this is I'm tempted to look at the VW Touareg. But it's on the list of expensive German premium vehicles list. lol
Click to expand...


The Infinities with the VQ are reliable as hell.
 
The latest issue of Motortrend has a 5-way (I think) SUV comparison. I believe the Mazda won. Maybe skim through it for some more information.
 
freedomweasel
The latest issue of Motortrend has a 5-way (I think) SUV comparison. I believe the Mazda won. Maybe skim through it for some more information.
Click to expand...

I have a feeling the Durango would have won if it had the transmission re-flash the new GC has.
 
Cale
I have a feeling the Durango would have won if it had the transmission re-flash the new GC has.
Click to expand...

I have zero experience with any of these vehicles, but MT rates them as follows:

6th: Ford Explorer - quality issues and "marshmallow" of the group
5th: Honda Pilot -noisy and harsh
4th: Chevy Traverse - great ride, otherwise not so great
3rd: Toyota Highlander - fast, comfy but "wobbly ride"
2nd: Dodge Durango - "would have claimed victory" except for the 5speed
1st: Mazda CX-9 - "best driver here, no questions asked"

The Durango and Highlander look the most truckish to me, which I think is a good thing, the Mazda just looks sort of odd to my eyes. If I'm buying an SUV I want it to look capable of doing truck-type things. The CX-9 looks more like a hatchback with a lift kit. That said, I don't think I could deal with a 5speed auto.

The article said that the Durango was definitely the best SUV out of the six except for the 5speed though, and it's the only RWD based one of the group. Apparently in a few months an 8speed is going to be put in.
 
freedomweasel
I have zero experience with any of these vehicles, but MT rates them as follows:

6th: Ford Explorer - quality issues and "marshmallow" of the group
5th: Honda Pilot -noisy and harsh
4th: Chevy Traverse - great ride, otherwise not so great
3rd: Toyota Highlander - fast, comfy but "wobbly ride"
2nd: Dodge Durango - "would have claimed victory" except for the 5speed
1st: Mazda CX-9 - "best driver here, no questions asked"

The Durango and Highlander look the most truckish to me, which I think is a good thing, the Mazda just looks sort of odd to my eyes. If I'm buying an SUV I want it to look capable of doing truck-type things. The CX-9 looks more like a hatchback with a lift kit. That said, I don't think I could deal with a 5speed auto.

The article said that the Durango was definitely the best SUV out of the six except for the 5speed though, and it's the only RWD based one of the group. Apparently in a few months an 8speed is going to be put in.
Click to expand...

Yeah I was referring to that test. I know someone with a new GC and he said the transmission had the same issues as MT stated with the Durango until it was reflashed with a new tune or something. It's supposed to be much better now. I wasn't aware that the 8 speed was coming to the rear drive vehicles as well.
 
grand-cherokee13.jpg

99-04 grand cherokee
If you're looking for a mid size SUV were you can ride around in luxury, this is the one i'd get. Great all around SUV for half the price of everything else. Limited and overland models ride like a cadillac with the addition of legendary 4WD. 4.7L does 0-60 in 6 seconds and gets 20-25 MPG highway. You can find ones in great condition for under $7,500.
 
The Vanishing Boy
-> ...

^ [X] [X] [X] (wrong buzzer) -> May look nice and all; but stupid Subaru didn't offer M/T on any spool-powered Foresters, on which is epic fail in my book. :indiff:

-> My take on the Forester by year:

04-05 - Really nice and cheap for what it is. But that 210-215hp might seem anemic compared to this one...

06-07 - Yup this one produces more POWWA at 228-233hp. But as what Niky said both of these SG Foresters needs a little more meat on its tires.
Click to expand...
That's a pretty silly thing to say as the difference in gearing alone negates the power difference.
The power difference is due to a different compression ratio and the fact the '06 has a cat less up pipe. Plus shorter gearing in the 04-05 made it much more fun. I think everyone knows that the 2004-2005 were a bit underrated so the 20hp claimed difference is maybe half that.
Plus, since this is supposed to be a family car, I don't know if JCE needs it to be manual or not so the newest gen isn't out of the question.
 
Last edited:
Lil Ape
grand-cherokee13.jpg

99-04 grand cherokee
If you're looking for a mid size SUV were you can ride around in luxury, this is the one i'd get. Great all around SUV for half the price of everything else. Limited and overland models ride like a cadillac with the addition of legendary 4WD. 4.7L does 0-60 in 6 seconds and gets 20-25 MPG highway. You can find ones in great condition for under $7,500.
Click to expand...

Exactly:tup: I own a '97 and parents own a '11 Grand Cherokee.
 
Actually, my beef with the Forester is that besides the lack of grip is the problem of wobbly suspenders... Most Foresters I've ridden/driven feel like they have more power than roll-control... Quite the opposite of the Mazda crossovers.

At least with the older models, you were lower down to the ground, which made it less scary. Still I'd definitely hit one with a suspension upgrade and a little power tweaking.

The CX9 is perhaps one of Mazda's best kept secrets. Closest any real seven seater actually gets to sporty. (and only because the X5's third row doesn't fit actual human beings) Am interested in finding out how the new Durango and Grand Cherokee drive, though.
 
My dad owned an '02 Durango, and now has an '06. I suspect that he'll have the new one in a few year's time... I really hope it's as good as it seems. I like what they've done with the exterior, though!

I like the Durango because it's always been that happy medium that provides big-time SUV capability that Ford Explorers, Honda Pilots, etc. can't provide, but without going up to something gargantuan like a Suburban or an Armada or an Expedition. I hope the new one continues the tradition.👍
 
AMCNUT
My dad owned an '02 Durango, and now has an '06. I suspect that he'll have the new one in a few year's time... I really hope it's as good as it seems. I like what they've done with the exterior, though!

I like the Durango because it's always been that happy medium that provides big-time SUV capability that Ford Explorers, Honda Pilots, etc. can't provide, but without going up to something gargantuan like a Suburban or an Armada or an Expedition. I hope the new one continues the tradition.👍
Click to expand...

It really is good. If you want a "crossover" with real towing capabilities it's the one.
 
Cale
It really is good. If you want a "crossover" with real towing capabilities it's the one.
Click to expand...

But the Durango is not a crossover. It's a truck with covered cargo area like the Tahoe and Expedition.

Don't care for any Chrysler/Dodge product that isn't wearing a Viper, Charger or Challenger badge.

I'll be dormant in this thread until we test drive some of these choices I've mentioned. :D. Thanks to those that contributed. 👍
 
The new one is based on the same architecture as the Jeep Grand Cherokee now isn't it? Wouldn't that make it still truck-based? I've always thought of the Grand Cherokee as a truck and not a crossover, so the new Durango should be no different.
 
AMCNUT
The new one is based on the same architecture as the Jeep Grand Cherokee now isn't it? Wouldn't that make it still truck-based? I've always thought of the Grand Cherokee as a truck and not a crossover, so the new Durango should be no different.
Click to expand...

GC is based on the MB ML/GL architecture now.
 
Well, regardless of what you want to call it I think the new Durango will be a sales success. It's got all the right stuff - and with Fiat's pockets to reach into Chrysler can finally go that extra mile and address all the shortcomings of the previous one.
 

Latest Posts

Back