Vehicle Question

Werehatrack said:

On Tue, 20 Apr 2004 18:38:21 -0400, "Chris"

may have said:

My Outback is the best car I've ever owned,
and it feels like I've had one of everything. Plus, the OP is
looking for used, and Subarus tend to last forever. That, and your
typical Subaru driver won't abuse the car or fail to maintain it.

Grab an Outback.

If you can. Subaru owners also tend not to sell or trade until the
car's used *up*. According to one of the guys I know there, at one
dealership nearby, the average age of a Subaru that's being replaced
is 9 years.

I don't know if things are different in your neck of the woods, but used
Subaru's - especially Outback Wagons - seem to grow on trees around here
where I live. I imagine a lot of them are being replaced by SUV's.

Evan Evans said:

A good uewd toyota truck is the ultimate.

The only problem with that, is that a lot of the time I travel with 3 or 4
people, so I'm stuck looking for a Crew Cab, which they've only made for the
last couple of years and they are still relatively expensive. The extended
cab Toyota just isn't big enough to have 2 normal adults in the back for
very long, and the Tundra's are still pretty expensive.

Otherwise, it would be a top choice. I had a nice Toyota truck several
years ago, and I liked it very much, except it was a little short on power.
Other than that, it was a fine vehicle and built like a tank.

Werehatrack said:

On Tue, 20 Apr 2004 16:26:04 -0700, Jay Hill <[email hidden]> may

have said:

Vans also have lower center of gravities than SUVs, which are prone
to rollovers. See
http://www.newyorker.com/online/content/?040112on_onlineonly01 for
starters.

And they usually get better mileage than an SUV with similar interior
space. Come ot think of it, the only SUV with interior space similar
to my SO's Grand Caravan would be something the size of a Suburban.
And the Chrysler minivans are front wheel drive, which has some
definite advantages in certain circumstances.

And, you can also find them in AWD versions as well, if that suits you.
(Makes those slippery ski-area parking lots and side streets a lot easier to
navigate.)

Chalo said:

Werehatrack said:

I don't know if it would suit you, but at one place where I ride on
occasion, a guy with a Honda Element pulled four bikes out of the
back. He had apparently rigged his own rack in it, with the bikes
vertical, front wheels removed.

One caveat about that vehicle is that its max payload weight rating is
only 675 lbs. Meaning my brother and I (for instance) would overload
it without any bikes, beer, or companions along for the ride. So much
for the "utility" in "sport-utility"!

I suppose if you only tote carbon-scandium racing bikes, it would be
A-OK. ;D

Thank you for pointing that out. I hadn't considered that would be a
problem in an SUV, but considering it's built on the Civic platform, I'm not
surprised. I can definitely see where 4 peeps, and their bikes and gear
would certainly reach that weight and more!

Werehatrack said:

On 20 Apr 2004 16:49:15 -0700, [email hidden] (Rick Warner)

may have said:

The only vehicle uglier than the Element is the Scion. I think the
designers at Honda and Toyota were competing for worst design ever
award.

As fas as appearance goes, positions one and two are taken by the
Aztek. The worst that any other vehicle can place at this point is
third in that category.

Everyone seems to agree on this, but believe it or not, it sells very well --
leaving many industry types scratching their heads.

Matt O.

Matt O'Toole said:

Werehatrack said:

On 20 Apr 2004 16:49:15 -0700, [email hidden] (Rick Warner)

may have said:

The only vehicle uglier than the Element is the Scion. I think the
designers at Honda and Toyota were competing for worst design ever
award.

As fas as appearance goes, positions one and two are taken by the
Aztek. The worst that any other vehicle can place at this point is
third in that category.

Everyone seems to agree on this, but believe it or not, it sells very
well -- leaving many industry types scratching their heads.

Utility-wise, it's a nice design. It drives well, has plenty of space. I
really liked the car, I just couldn't get past the look of the nose.

I know used ones are dirt cheap. In the past few months, I've seen some 1
year old ones with very low mileage come up for sale at less that $14k, and
those are nice ones with AWD and good options, not the stripped-down 2wd
ones. If they weren't so darn ugly, I'd snap one up in a minute.

HardwareLust said:

Any specific recommendations as to an appropriate vehicle that would make
carrying multiple bicycles easy? Van? Station wagon? I realize a full
size van, SUV, or truck would probably be the best convenience-wise, but I'm
not keen on buying some big road hog with poor gas mileage.

Lots of fibs posted here. Honest truth is that you can get more
bikes+people inside a mini-van than any other passenger car. Bikes just
slide in upright; on some models you do better by removing one seat.

If you want to take bikes on top, then you have lots of choices. But for
inside, it's a minivan. I drive a Subaru Forester (a "cute ute",
I guess, or, really, a station wagon), and can fit a bike in flat easily
with the rear seats down, or one vertical inside (use a truck fork mount
attached to a board to hold it upright). The only problem is that most
folks would have to take the seat off to get it under the roof. I do this
for my partial-commute, but for most drives-to-the-ride I put it on top.

--

David L. Johnson

__o | the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders.
_`\(,_ | That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being
(_)/ (_) | attacked, and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism
and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any
<country. -- Hermann Goering

[email hidden] (Eagle Jackson) wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

"HardwareLust" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

But, it would be nice to have the ability to carry bikes inside the vehicle, and still have room for 3 or 4.

Bikes inside the vehicle plus room for 3 or 4 -- I think you're into
at least a mini-van or something full-sized.

If you want to carry the bikes on the roof -- or inside if it's just 2
of you -- then a good choice is a station wagon. I like the Subaru's
-- I've had good like in the 4 I've owned.

If it's 2 people + 2 conventional bikes inside, my Toyota Matrix fits
the bill if you're willing to pack carefully. It's kind of neat to
drive a Corolla-size car that will hold 4 people my size (6-foot-4)
comfortably.

But the OP was saying he wanted 4 people and 4 bikes inside. I think
the only way to do that is with a minivan. I've got an (old, slow,
creaky) Aerostar that I use for carting around my Tour Easy
recumbents. With the center seat installed, you could carry 4 people &
4 bikes without a hitch- 5 people if they're friendly.

Jeff

On Wed, 21 Apr 2004 02:06:21 GMT, "Matt O'Toole" <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Everyone seems to agree on this, but believe it or not, it sells very well --
leaving many industry types scratching their heads.

That's not what I read. I remember an article where it was stated
that GM was giving massive incentives to employees to buy these
things, to help unload a large inventory buildup. Maybe they sell
well locally to you?

Barry

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

OTOH, I have also used a trailer hitch-mounted bike carrier that can
carry 4 bikes and would work on almost any vehicle, if you don't mind
having your bikes out in the weather.

is this a special trailer designed just for bikes? Or a standard
utility trailer you buy say at Home Depot?

HardwareLust said:

This might be a slightly strange request, but I'm in the market for a used
car/truck/SUV, and considering my two primary uses are driving to work, and
driving to rides or races, I'm wondering what would be a good choice for
carrying bicycles and passengers?

I'm currently driving a Miata, while a wonderful car, but isn't the most
useful of vehicles, especially for carrying bicycles around. Quite often
there's three or four of us that go, and I can obviously only carry two.

Any specific recommendations as to an appropriate vehicle that would make
carrying multiple bicycles easy? Van? Station wagon? I realize a full
size van, SUV, or truck would probably be the best convenience-wise, but I'm
not keen on buying some big road hog with poor gas mileage. But, it would
be nice to have the ability to carry bikes inside the vehicle, and still
have room for 3 or 4.

Just looking for ideas.

Thanks,
H.

Hardware Lust:

Dodge Caravan with the rear bench seat removed. Put some Bike Tights
onto a board and you're all set. You can carry a tandem in the short
wheelbase version but to do it right you'll need the long wheelbase van.
If all you carry are singles the short wheelbase version is fine. Get
the captains chairs for the second row also. I kept the left captains
chair in so that I could carry 3 people. That left enough room for the
tandem & 2 singles.

MOO,
Matt

On Wed, 21 Apr 2004 10:30:48 GMT, B a r r y

may have said:

On Wed, 21 Apr 2004 02:06:21 GMT, "Matt O'Toole" <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Everyone seems to agree on this, but believe it or not, it sells very well --
leaving many industry types scratching their heads.

That's not what I read. I remember an article where it was stated
that GM was giving massive incentives to employees to buy these
things, to help unload a large inventory buildup. Maybe they sell
well locally to you?

Further evidence of unpublished sales incentives is easy to get. Just
go shopping for an SUV at a Pontiac dealer. I was talking to someone
at a convention recently who has an Aztek; he'd gone into the
dealership to look at other models, and the salesman kept nudging him
toward the Aztek hinting of really deep discounts. He smelled a
bargain, so he worked the salesman down to $6800 under factory sticker
on a cash deal for a unit that wasn't overloaded with features. A few
weeks later, he found out that someone with whom he works had haggled
a different dealer down even farther. Neither of these were demos.

Unfortunately, the sloping rear roof does wierd things to the cargo
area. And it really is the most butt-ugly thing out of Detroit in a
very long time.

--
My email address is antispammed; pull WEEDS if replying via e-mail.
Typoes are not a bug, they're a feature.
Words processed in a facility that contains nuts.

"Werehatrack" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Further evidence of unpublished sales incentives is easy to get. Just
go shopping for an SUV at a Pontiac dealer. I was talking to someone
at a convention recently who has an Aztek; he'd gone into the
dealership to look at other models, and the salesman kept nudging him
toward the Aztek hinting of really deep discounts. He smelled a
bargain, so he worked the salesman down to $6800 under factory sticker
on a cash deal for a unit that wasn't overloaded with features. A few
weeks later, he found out that someone with whom he works had haggled
a different dealer down even farther. Neither of these were demos.

Unfortunately, the sloping rear roof does wierd things to the cargo
area. And it really is the most butt-ugly thing out of Detroit in a
very long time.

Yep, GM has the worst designers on the planet. Top 3 ugliest motor vehicles
of the last decade, Aztek, Avalanche, and any Cadillac.

Greg

HardwareLust said:

Minivans also have the benefit of being extremely cheap, as they have
virtually no resale value due to the SUV boom.

That may be true of domestics, but a used import minivan costs nearly as
much as a new one in these parts. Don't ask me how I know this. 🙂

--
Dave
dvt at psu dot edu

dvt said:

HardwareLust said:

Minivans also have the benefit of being extremely cheap, as they have
virtually no resale value due to the SUV boom.

That may be true of domestics, but a used import minivan costs nearly
as much as a new one in these parts. Don't ask me how I know this. 🙂

I would agree with that. I think the OP was referring to a Chrysler T&C. I
am drooling over the new Nissan minivan, but it'll be years before I can
afford such a swank vehicle. :-)

One exception to this would be the Volkswagen Eurovan, I think. They seem
to have fairly low resale values.

In article <[email hidden]>,

G.T. said:

"Werehatrack" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

[Pontiac Aztek, super cheap]

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Unfortunately, the sloping rear roof does wierd things to the cargo
area. And it really is the most butt-ugly thing out of Detroit in a
very long time.

Oh yeah. Full glory:

http://www.pontiac.com/aztek/gallery.jsp?brand=aztek&pagename=models_pric
es&Location=HNav

That's some pictures of the current model, which unbelievably, is not
quite as awful-looking as the original.

Quoted message said:

Yep, GM has the worst designers on the planet. Top 3 ugliest motor vehicles
of the last decade, Aztek, Avalanche, and any Cadillac.

I have to disagree. The Aztek is an easy winner, but the Avalanche is
not even in the same category (I find its looks reasonable, and the
concept clever):

http://www.chevrolet.com/avalanche/gallery.htm

And as for the Cadillacs, I understand that the "Art & Science" design
theory is not for everyone, but the newest cars from them are very, very
interesting.

The Seville, alas, is not quite as tidy as the original super-crisp
version:

http://www.cadillac.com/cadillacjsp/models/gallery.jsp?model=seville&sect
ion=colorExt

But the CTS is a very clever, very nice car. It looks even better in
person than in pictures:

http://www.cadillac.com/cadillacjsp/models/gallery.jsp?model=cts&section=
colorExt#

I attribute some of this to the fact that these seem to be fairly
low-angle shots (for drama! And excitement!) which do not flatter the
car as much as more normal views. Picture #5 in the above link is more
like it.

Who is doing some really bad design? I'm still dubious about the
Chrysler 300 (nice car, clunky styling), and I think that while Ford has
done some very neat things with their retro Mustang, that plumbing their
back catalog for styling is something that can't last long.

But the single worst designer of cars available to Americans is probably
Chris Bangle. Behold the BMW Z4:

http://www.bmw.com/generic/com/en/products/automobiles/showroom/z4/z4/ind
ex.html

Note how the going-everywhere sheet metal creases cleverly conspire to
make a convertible two-seater look like complete [censored]. Compare and
contrast to the really pretty Z3 to see what the Z4 could have looked
like if BMW had done nothing at all.

Even the new 6-series isn't safe. Blandly acceptable from the front, but
its rear suffers from acute Bangleosis:

http://www.bmw.com/generic/com/en/products/automobiles/showroom/6series/c
onvertible/index.html

The 5 and 7 series sedans are much less awful, mainly because putting a
stupid-looking trunk on them isn't quite as painful, and it looks like
they let someone else style the sides. I have gotten used to the
slightly odd headlights, too.

The 3 series, especially the full-on M3 Coupe, are quite nice cars.

Oh, and the X3? It thanks the Aztek every morning for making the X3 look
normal.

ObBike: Van Dessel. What are they doing? They used to make a beautiful
curved-tube road machine that was my dream ride, and hang any weight
penalties.

Now that frame is only available on their "Super Fly" moustache-barred
city bike. With a disc brake. Their current road bikes have bland
frames: http://vandesselsports.com

So I'm back to being in love with the Cervélo Soloist and the demented
P3: http://cervelo.com/bikes/SLTeam.html

No, really I just love the old Pinarello, honest,

--
Ryan Cousineau, [email hidden] http://www.sfu.ca/~rcousine/wiredcola/
President, Fabrizio Mazzoleni Fan Club

Ryan Cousineau said:

I have to disagree. The Aztek is an easy winner, but the Avalanche is
not even in the same category (I find its looks reasonable, and the
concept clever):

http://www.chevrolet.com/avalanche/gallery.htm

Incredibly boxy and very cheap looking to me.

Quoted message said:

And as for the Cadillacs, I understand that the "Art & Science" design
theory is not for everyone, but the newest cars from them are very, very
interesting.

The Seville, alas, is not quite as tidy as the original super-crisp
version:

http://www.cadillac.com/cadillacjsp/models/gallery.jsp?model=seville&sect
ion=colorExt

So freakin' generic looking. Blech. If I was to buy a luxury car it
wouldn't be a Cadillac.

Quoted message said:

But the CTS is a very clever, very nice car. It looks even better in
person than in pictures:

http://www.cadillac.com/cadillacjsp/models/gallery.jsp?model=cts&section=
colorExt#

I'm warming up to them but I still think they are plasticy looking and too
angular and boxy.

Quoted message said:

Who is doing some really bad design? I'm still dubious about the
Chrysler 300 (nice car, clunky styling),

I'm still undecided, I think clunky is nice for entry level cars but not
for a flagship model.

Quoted message said:

and I think that while Ford has
done some very neat things with their retro Mustang,

Really disappointing.

Quoted message said:

But the single worst designer of cars available to Americans is probably
Chris Bangle. Behold the BMW Z4:

http://www.bmw.com/generic/com/en/products/automobiles/showroom/z4/z4/ind
ex.html

Note how the going-everywhere sheet metal creases cleverly conspire to
make a convertible two-seater look like complete [censored]. Compare and
contrast to the really pretty Z3 to see what the Z4 could have looked
like if BMW had done nothing at all.

Even the new 6-series isn't safe. Blandly acceptable from the front, but
its rear suffers from acute Bangleosis:

http://www.bmw.com/generic/com/en/products/automobiles/showroom/6series/c
onvertible/index.html

The 5 and 7 series sedans are much less awful, mainly because putting a
stupid-looking trunk on them isn't quite as painful, and it looks like
they let someone else style the sides. I have gotten used to the
slightly odd headlights, too.

Agreed.

Quoted message said:

The 3 series, especially the full-on M3 Coupe, are quite nice cars.

Oh, and the X3? It thanks the Aztek every morning for making the X3 look
normal.

A co-worker just bought one, I'll take it over an Aztek.

I think GM is improving, while Ford and Toyota are getting worse, and the
rest are staying the same.

Quoted message said:

ObBike: Van Dessel. What are they doing?

I don't know, I can't stand curving top and downtubes. But I do like
curved chain and seatstays.

Greg

G.T. said:

"Werehatrack" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Further evidence of unpublished sales incentives is easy to get. Just
go shopping for an SUV at a Pontiac dealer. I was talking to someone
at a convention recently who has an Aztek; he'd gone into the
dealership to look at other models, and the salesman kept nudging him
toward the Aztek hinting of really deep discounts. He smelled a
bargain, so he worked the salesman down to $6800 under factory sticker
on a cash deal for a unit that wasn't overloaded with features. A few
weeks later, he found out that someone with whom he works had haggled
a different dealer down even farther. Neither of these were demos.

Unfortunately, the sloping rear roof does wierd things to the cargo
area. And it really is the most butt-ugly thing out of Detroit in a
very long time.

Yep, GM has the worst designers on the planet. Top 3 ugliest motor vehicles
of the last decade, Aztek, Avalanche, and any Cadillac.

Greg

Wait, you forgot the Buick Riviera of a few years ago. Looked like a
flattened meatloaf.

MOO,
Matt

Ryan Cousineau said:

Quoted message said:

Yep, GM has the worst designers on the planet. Top 3 ugliest motor vehicles
of the last decade, Aztek, Avalanche, and any Cadillac.

Quoted message said:

And as for the Cadillacs, I understand that the "Art & Science" design
theory is not for everyone, but the newest cars from them are very, very
interesting.

You want ugly? I'll give you ugly. These look much worse in real life
than any picture can do justice:

http://www.cadillac.com/cadillacjsp/models/gallery.jsp?model=escalade

--
Dave
dvt at psu dot edu

HardwareLust said:

I would agree with that. I think the OP was referring to a Chrysler T&C. I
am drooling over the new Nissan minivan, but it'll be years before I can
afford such a swank vehicle. :-)

The Nissan underwent significant changes for 2004, so the prior models
may be slightly cheaper. The new one is quite a bit larger.

For a low-price minivan, you might try the Mazda MPV. It's slightly
smaller than the new Nissan or any recent Honda. It also has a little
less power (200 HP vs 220, I think). And I don't think you'll fit 4
people and 4 bikes *inside* the vehicle. Maybe 4 people plus 2-3 bikes
would fit. But it is thousands of US$ less expensive, at least around here.

--
Dave
dvt at psu dot edu