Vehicle Question

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 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.

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 Tue, 20 Apr 2004 16:26:04 -0700, Jay Hill

may have said:

Vans also have lower center of gravities than SUVs, which
are prone to rollovers. See newyorker.comonlOpen ↗
ine/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.)

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.

[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:

Matt O'Toole 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:

pontiac.comgallery.jspOpen ↗
me=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):

chevrolet.comgallery.htmOpen ↗

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:

cadillac.comgallery.jspOpen ↗
l=seville&sect ion=colorExt

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

cadillac.comgallery.jspOpen ↗
l=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:

bmw.comshowOpen ↗
room/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:

bmw.comshowOpen ↗
room/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: vandesselsports.comvandesselsports.comOpen ↗

So I'm back to being in love with the Cervélo Soloist and
the demented
P3: cervelo.comSLTeam.htmlOpen ↗

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

--
Ryan Cousineau, [email hidden]
sfu.cawiredcolaOpen ↗ 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):

chevrolet.comgallery.htmOpen ↗

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:

cadillac.comgallery.jspOpen ↗
del=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:

cadillac.comgallery.jspOpen ↗
del=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:

bmw.comshOpen ↗
owroom/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:

bmw.comshOpen ↗
owroom/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

In article said:

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:

cadillac.comgallery.jspOpen ↗
el=escalade

Yeah but the EXT is the real babboon's ass, it "blows" the
Escalade away in my humble opinion.

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

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:

cadillac.comgallery.jspOpen ↗
l=escalade

--
Dave dvt at psu dot edu