[Subscribe to Daily Digest] |
 | [Main Other Cars Bulletin Board | BBFAQ |
Prev by Date | Next by Date | Post Followup ]
Member Login / Signup - Members see fewer ads. - Latest Member Gallery Photos
Inexpensive AWD Vehicle II Posted by Justin VanAbrahams [Email]  (#32) [Profile/Gallery]
(more from Justin VanAbrahams) on Wed, 28 Sep 2016 12:07:51
Members do not see ads below this line. - Help Keep This Site Online - Signup
|
I have spent the last couple weeks looking at ~$5k AWD vehicles, and here is what I've got so far - in case anyone else ends up here. :) All of this was done at various little used car dealers... which is the only place you find 10 year old cars around here. It's highly unlikely I'd buy a used car from a dealer - I want to meet the owner, discuss the service history, etc., but swindling test drives from a private citizen wastes a lot more time.
2007 Escape Hybrid AWD - The Escape was stunning. It was tight, drove great, and utterly shocked me when I remembered to look at the odometer and found it had 190,000 miles on it - I thought for sure it was a 100k vehicle - it was so nice I didn't even look. Not *fast* but plenty of power, and even at nearly 200k the engine start-stop and hybrid system worked great. Maybe not a surprise considering the hybrid system is from Toyota. ;) Steering was direct, ride was decidedly truck-like vs. car-like, but still very quiet inside. Rear folding seats (which are important here) were clumsy to operate but left a perfectly square, flat floor like a c900. Something I never noticed before - the seat bottoms are really short. Inexplicably short! Half my leg short. So weird. I can't say for certain, but I really feel like this would be a major liability for any extended driving. It's almost enough to kick it off the list!
2005 Murano AWD - The Murano was every bit as nice as I expected. This particular one had a 180k on it, which *probably* means the CVT has been replaced, but it's impossible to know. The sales guy cautioned, "You know about the CVTs..." Still, it drove great. Everything about it was really nice except for the rear seats folding - Nissan implemented the Cheap Way of folding seats, where the back just flops down instead of the Good Way where the seat bottoms flip forward to create a flatter, more uniform area. So very, very annoying - especially in this class of vehicle. Of course the VQ is a great engine, the Murano had a very nice ride and was super comfy inside. I still love the lines, but the inside looks a little Japanese sci-fi - hardly a deal breaker! The CVT probably is one, though.
2005 and 2006 Forester XS - Although there is nothing sexy about it, these 1st gen Foresters just keep bobbing to the top. The right size, the right features, no major reliability issues. Even the head gasket thing isn't such a huge deal, certainly nothing compared to $4k JATCO CVT swaps. The 2.5l makes plenty of power, the ride is on the car side of firm. Seats are flat, but generally comfortable. The giant sunroof on the XS is pretty great, no lie. It's sort of c900-like - not the fastest, not the most agile, not the biggest, not the comfiest, but a great intersection of car features - *especially* visibility. A giant greenhouse with a tall back window make it easy to drive, back up, and park.
2005 Outback XT - I drove this primarily for comparison to the Forester - to see how the extra length affected rear visibility, handling, etc. It doesn't much - the Forester is still easier to manage in reverse, but the Outback definitely has better visibility and "feel" than the XC70, which is its obvious competitor. The Subaru 2.5t is a MUCH nicer drive than the Volvo 2.4t, which I hate saying, but power delivery is far more ready, far more linear. I am sure a lot of this has to do with transmission tuning - the Volvo has a lot of slosh. Seats are typical Subaru adequate, but all the materials feel pretty nice. Again, giant sunroof. :) The ride is even more car-like than the Forester, but you still know you're not in a typical car.
2006 Volvo XC70 - I had high hopes for this car. They fixed a lot of stuff in these 2nd gen FWD Volvos, especially the folding rear seat which now goes totally flat. The interior is almost magical - so cushy and comfortable. Unfortunately, they did not fix their transmission tuning, which is still very Mercedes-like in sloshy shifts and unwillingness to downshift, same as my 850 and 1st gen V70. Overall, it drives like a much larger car, which I don't much enjoy. Rear visibility is a joke - the tiny back window mostly useless. I had high hopes for this car - I've always liked Volvo wagons - but compared to a 9-3 Combi or even the aforementioned Subaru the XC70 is just no fun. But, like, *really* comfortable.
So, having done all this, I have learned that the Colorado destination isn't near Colorado Springs like I was originally told, but rather near Grand Junction. That changes EVERYTHING. Being west of the Rockies means cold weather but little snow. AWD is far less important than it originally appeared, but ground clearance might still be desirable as the specific town is pretty darned rural and unpaved roads will probably be involved.
As such, I'm going to look harder at small SUVs with real 4WD systems... I wouldn't want this lady managing a transfer case on the daily, but once in a blue moon would be okay. I'm going to check out the Xterra, a Jeep Liberty, and maybe a Mercedes ML. A Cherokee Sport is on the list, but they are hard to find around here. I've considered Suzukis and Isuzus too, but I don't want to get into a situation where an orphan vehicle becomes a parts problem. I'm tempted to look at compact pickups, but I feel like safety on these vehicles lagged behind for a really long time.
Honestly, at this point, if I found a good Forester or Outback I would just buy it. I'm sold. But I haven't found the *exact* right one yet so I'll keep looking. ;)
posted by 12.195.130...
, Wed, 28 Sep 2016 12:07:51 <-- Viewing This Message, Thu, 6 Oct 2016 16:28:56
, Thu, 6 Oct 2016 18:24:16, Fri, 7 Oct 2016 10:31:19, Fri, 7 Oct 2016 15:07:33, Tue, 18 Oct 2016 15:13:06, Mon, 24 Oct 2016 11:49:11, Fri, 7 Oct 2016 10:36:24
, Thu, 29 Sep 2016 12:09:52, Thu, 29 Sep 2016 13:17:34, Thu, 29 Sep 2016 11:44:59, Thu, 29 Sep 2016 13:09:16, Fri, 30 Sep 2016 22:18:31, Sun, 2 Oct 2016 12:34:25, Sun, 2 Oct 2016 17:25:17
, Wed, 28 Sep 2016 18:19:35, Thu, 29 Sep 2016 11:59:29, Thu, 29 Sep 2016 20:09:37, Fri, 30 Sep 2016 12:54:52, Sat, 1 Oct 2016 19:34:00
No Site Registration is Required to Post - Site Membership is optional (Member Features List), but helps to keep the site online
for all Saabers. If the site helps you, please consider helping the site by becoming a member.
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
