| paul123 |
Eight new reasons to ditch that SUV
Here comes a new species of vehicle. We just don't know what to call these things.
April 23, 2002: 11:29 AM EDT
By Jerry Edgerton, Contributing Writer.
NEW YORK (CNN/Money) - What do you call a vehicle that looks like a truck and is designed to go off-road but has a roof that goes all the way to the rear gate with a seating arrangement like a station wagon? Well, at some point we decided to call those sport/utility vehicles. Now comes the auto industry's next "what do we call it?" challenge.
Ready? What do you call a vehicle that looks kind of like an SUV but is lower to the ground and doesn't even pretend to be a real rock climber. Some might even say that it's nothing but a funny-shaped station wagon.
"Funny-shaped station wagon" isn't going to sell a lot of cars, so that name won't stick. "Segment buster"? "Sports tourer"? "Sport/utility wagon"?
Whatever you call them, these new vehicles all are trying to separate themselves from the polarizing image of the SUV, which car buyers either love or hate. SUVs are fun, spacious and tough off-road to those who love them. They're irresponsible, gas-guzzling road hogs to those who hate them.
Driving a fine line
For people who like SUVs but think they drive too much like trucks, certain crossovers drive like cars but still have the truckish look of a sport/utility. On the other side of the marketing divide, many people who buy wagons, like the Volvo Cross Country, want SUV-type features like all-wheel drive without the negative image that big SUVs have in some quarters. And young buyers of new vehicles like the Pontiac Vibe and Toyota Matrix want a cheaper alternative than an SUV -- and something that looks nothing at all like the minivans and sport/utilities their parents drive.
These crossovers aren't the first attempt to recycle and combine automotive DNA to produce a new machine. Chrysler's PT Cruiser, introduced in 2000, features a retro 1930s look and as much cargo room as a small SUV, but it's based on a small-car platform.
Chevrolet's popular Avalanche combines SUV seating with a full pickup bed. But as previously fast-growing sales of mid-size SUVs flatten out (down to just over 8 percent market share in the early months this year from 10 percent in early 2001), car companies feel a new urgency to come up with crossover candidates that will excite consumers.
There have been even earlier ventures into this new, unnamed territory. Although Subaru bills it as a "true sport/utility vehicle," the low-down Forester probably fits somewhere in here. And, long before the SUV craze, there was that odd 1980s bird, the AMC Eagle.
PONTIAC VIBE This vehicle crosses over on a small -- and the companies hope young -- scale. Growing out of past small-car joint ventures, Pontiac's parent, General Motors, cooperated with Toyota in designing this hatchback/wagon aimed at young buyers. It's based on the mechanical platform of the Toyota Corolla.
Outside, each company did its own design -- with the Vibe looking more rugged and, to my eyes, more stylish. Inside, many of the design touches are similar. Admiring glances and questions about the Vibe from twenty-somethings made it seem like Pontiac is striking the right note (or maybe the young car fanciers just recognized the Vibe from the ads on "Survivor").
I test-drove a black Vibe GT, with the four-cylinder, 1.8-liter, 180-horsepower engine and six-speed manual shifter. Winding the GT through the six gears was fun with plenty of zip, and the sport-tuned suspension handled curves and corners with ease. I didn't drive the standard Vibe with 130 horsepower, but some other reviewers have found it sluggish.
Inside, a gray metallic console for radio and temperature controls contrasting against a matte black dash gives a stylish look. Rear seats fold flat to present a hard-plastic surface like a truck bed. The front passenger seat folds flat, too, in case you want to ditch your friend and carry a longer surfboard.
The base-model Vibe lists for $16,900, including destination charge, the GT version $19,900 before options. The all-wheel-drive version, which comes only with the smaller engine, lists for $20,100.
TOYOTA MATRIX The Toyota Matrix, with the same engine choices as its mechanical twin, the Pontiac Vibe, starts the base model at a lower $15,155 but with fewer standard features than the Vibe. Its XRS performance version lists for $19,815 before options but at that price comes with automatic transmission, a useful choice that the Vibe does not offer.
VOLVO V70 XC (CROSS COUNTRY) The words "Volvo" and "aggressive" don't often share the same sentence. But XC wagon, with its front end shielded in black rubber, can only be describe as a very aggressive looking machine.
All-wheel drive and higher ground clearance will work well for those who want to take their Volvo off-road for camping or skiing. And there will be plenty of room for the gear; with the rear seats folded the XC's 71.4 cubic feet of cargo space is about the same as a Jeep Grand Cherokee. The XC features the same wonderfully comfortable seats and full array of safety gear as all Volvo wagons. List price with destination charge is $37,125. That is pricey, but compare it to competitor Audi Allroad Quattro, which lists for $40,545.
BUICK RENDEZVOUS The Rendezvous, first-to-market among big crossovers with three rows of seats, is doing just what General Motors hoped it would. With about 20 percent of all Buick sales in the first quarter this year, Rendezvous is offsetting those flagging sales of Buick sedans to aging buyers.
With an SUV-like name and appearance, the Rendezvous is a mechanical cousin of GM minivans. Crisp steering and smooth car-like ride definitely give the Rendezvous crossover credibility. A two-wheel drive Rendezvous is listed at $26,000 with destination charge. With all-wheel drive, the Rendezvous lists at $28,535
NISSAN MURANO Nissan, which scored a critical and sales success with its redesigned Altima last year, will bring out the Murano this fall based on the Altima's mechanical platform. That will include the brawny 240-horsepower, 3.5-liter V6 that powers the Altima. The Murano will list in the $30,000 price range. Nissan's calling it an "urban SUV" and says it's designed more for owners who would want its all-wheel-drive for bad weather but would not go off-road that often.
CHRYSLER PACIFICA Chrysler has opted for term "sports tourer" for its big crossover with three rows of seats available. This must be more fun than usual when you get to name not just the vehicle but, the whole segment. Originally shown as an auto show concept vehicle, the Pacifica will go on sale next spring as a 2004 model. Built in the same plant as DaimlerChrysler minivans, the Pacifica will get the powerful 3.5-liter V6 engine from the Chrysler 300M sedan. Prices are expected to start around $30,000.
CADILLAC SRX Cadillac wants to call its entry a "luxury crossover vehicle." The SRX, which grew out of the 2001 Vizon concept car, also bears some resemblance to the hard-edged look of this year's new CTS sedan. GM plans to bring out the SRX in the first half of 2003. Cadillac hasn't discussed specific pricing but appears likely to position it in the mid-$30,000 to $40,000 range.
FORD CROSSTRAINER Ford looked to athletic shoes to name its competitor to the Buick Rendezvous. Due to go on sale in 2004, the CrossTrainer will also handle up to seven passengers with three rows of seats. It will also come with an all-wheel drive option. Ford hasn't discussed price yet, but the Crosstrainer will probably come in at less than $30,000. |
|
|
| paul123 |
| #1 BUICK RENDEZVOUS |
|
|
| paul123 |
| #3 CHRYSLER PACIFICA |
|
|
| paul123 |
| #4 FORD CROSSTRAINER |
|
|
| paul123 |
| #8 VOLVO V70 XC (CROSS COUNTRY) |
|
|
| MDXLuvr |
If i was in the market for a SUV a year or 2 from now, OUT OF THAT LIST- I would be most interested in the Nissan Murano. It is the next gen pathfinder. I saw it at the auto show- looked pretty slick. a little smaller than the 'X, but looks sharp.
as for the other ones on the list :rolleyes: , specially the one not listed- the Avalanche. |
|
|
| msu79gt82 |
| ... for me at 8:50 CST. Perhaps its a server problem and they'll be there later:confused: |
|
|
| paul123 |
quote:
Originally posted by msu79gt82
... for me at 8:50 CST. Perhaps its a server problem and they'll be there later:confused:
Check your viewer to see which one you are using. You may have to change to another viewer. |
|
|
| Robyjo |
Paul,
By viewer do you mean browser?
I don't see any of the pix either, but I know what these cars look like anyway....you sure you posted them right?
Thanks,
Rob :cool: |
|
|
| paul123 |
It's odd my XP windows has trouble opening, but I can see no problem on the acuramdx.org site. How many people are having trouble viewing?
This is getting a little to technical for me, are there any computer people for help? |
|
|
| rliggayu |
| I was able to see them last night, but not today. |
|
|
| rliggayu |
| guess what? it's my browser, I can't view it from Netscape but now I can view it from Internet Explorer. |
|
|
| sgtglok |
| nope, can't see the images in IE 6. did you upload or use [IMG] redirect? curious at what is the real problem here... :rolleyes: |
|
|
| msu79gt82 |
| Still can't see them on IE 5 |
|
|
| renov8r |
but it'll mess up your cookies and such
just try to click on this link
http://www.acuramdx.org/forums/atta...hp?postid=57342
It ought to be the picture of the caddy
If that doesn't work then you need to clean-up your cache.
If you need stepwise instructions (that will preserve your cookies) post here, and I can help |
|
|
| sgtglok |
# 1 BUICK RENDEZVOUS
 |
|
|
| sgtglok |
#2 CADILLAC SPX
 |
|
|
| sgtglok |
#3 CHRYSLER PACIFICA
 |
|
|
| sgtglok |
#4 FORD CROSSTRAINER
 |
|
|
| sgtglok |
#7 PONTIAC VIBE
 |
|
|
| mdxpecting |
| Can't see 'em. |
|
|
| Robyjo |
| IE 6, and I can see them all....thanks! |
|
|
| TheWorm |
| I can see the original set and the reposts fine, w/IE6... |
|
|
| sgtglok |
Oh-oh, missed one... :D
#8 VOLVO XC90
 |
|
|
| sgtglok |
...the #8 was referring to VOLVO V70 XC (which I find boring and dull) - nothing like 90!
 |
|
|
| Robyjo |
| Are those driving (road) lights on the XC90? They're pretty low for fog lights, aren't they? |
|
|
| sgtglok |
the whole 90's lights setup is... different than others - look at the picture. can you name all the lights on the front?
btw, fogs are placed low on 70's as well, so i assume volvo thinks it's a proper location for them, and i see nothing wrong with that! |
|
|
| msu79gt82 |
| .. but still get the Red X on paul123 originals. |
|
|
| BostonX |
| You should be happy you can't see them. With the exception of the Volvo and possibly that Nissan Murano thing they're a pretty ugly bunch! |
|
|
| paul123 |
quote:
Originally posted by BostonX
You should be happy you can't see them. With the exception of the Volvo and possibly that Nissan Murano thing they're a pretty ugly bunch!
We've seen the future and it ain't to pretty!!! |
|
|
| sgtglok |
hm... now I believe this is the first time I have experienced incompatibility between XP and Win2K. I see paul123's original images fine on my XP comp at home, but at work I use Win2K and they were broken.
paul, I assume you used links rather than uploading the files to this server - I noticed that you MUST NOT LEAVE any blank spaces between IMG tags. i wonder if this was the case here. a little bit more technical, and i'd wonder too dangerously close to sound 'geeky'. ;) |
|
|
| Lrpba300 |
Can't see the original posted pics w/win 98 SE w/ I/E 6.0 at work. will try at home w/ W2k & I/E 6.0.
Good pics, but, some of those things are UGLY! I guess it's the "trend":rolleyes: |
|
|
| msu79gt82 |
I am at home on XP (IE 6.0) and can see both sets of pictures just fine. Yet at work (IE 5), as I stated earlier, I could not see paul123's first set.
Thank you Mr. Gates:confused: |
|
|
| Lrpba300 |
| At home, same thing. W2k w/I/E 6.0. Can't see paul's pic's, but can see sgtglok's pics fine????:rolleyes: |
|
|
|
