or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

pick my colorado car.. - Page 7

post #181 of 426


This http://www.pentastars.com/engines/tech.php propaganda page is the one I was really looking at.

post #182 of 426

Here would be a very good reason to go bigger than Subie...

 

drool.gificon14.gif

SideView.JPG

post #183 of 426
Quote:
Originally Posted by crgildart View Post

Here would be a very good reason to go bigger than Subie...

 

drool.gificon14.gif

SideView.JPG

 

The 6-cyl 3.5R tows 3,000 lbs, so it might manage that......unless it weighs over 3,000 lbs that is.

I'm not a good "Boat & Trailer Weight Estimator."
 

 

post #184 of 426
Thread Starter 

Remember the cardinal rule of boats-  they are great as long as someone else owns them...biggrin.gif

post #185 of 426
Quote:
Originally Posted by Finndog View Post

Remember the cardinal rule of boats-  they are great as long as someone else owns them...biggrin.gif



I thought it was "the two happiest days of a boat owner, the day they buy it and the day they sell it"!

 

post #186 of 426
Thread Starter 

that too....icon14.gif

post #187 of 426

Jeep Grand Cherokee engine options:

 

3.6L V6 - 290 hp/260 lb torque - 16/23 mpg

5.7L V8 - 360 hp/389 lb torque - 13/20 mpg

6.4L V8 - 465 hp/465 lb torque - 12/18 mpg

 

After experiencing the 3.6 Pentastar, which felt plenty powerful and V8 smooth, I would personally go that route due to the difference in gas mileage, not to mention the cost savings. Either one of those V8's is a killer option, though! Man that 6.4 has a ton of power!

 

Compare the new V6 to my fiance's '99 GC that has a 4.7L V8. It has 235 hp/290 lb torque, and gets 15/19 mpg. The new V6 blows away the old V8's. A bit less torque, but more horsepower and much improved gas mileage. Nowadays, however, it's all about the transmission. Manufacturers lately have really been getting the gearing down right in a lot of cars to get you the power where you want it for each application, and the miles per gallon up across the board.

post #188 of 426

And if I haven't said it already, I'm a HUGE Subaru fan. Unstoppable winter machines! However, the new Grand Cherokee blows the Subaru interiors out of the water. You get way more bang for your buck. Not to mention, true off-road capability to boot. Most people don't need SUV's and their off-roadability and crappy gas mileage, however, it sounds like Finndog may really take advantage of something like a Jeep. I still can't believe I'm even halfway recommending a Chrysler related vehicle. That's how much they've changed my mind with this latest batch of products.

 

The msn reviewers also seem to like it a lot:

http://autos.msn.com/research/vip/review.aspx?year=2012&make=Jeep&model=Grand%20Cherokee&cp-documentid=1154467

http://autos.msn.com/research/vip/review.aspx?year=2012&make=Jeep&model=Grand%20Cherokee&cp-documentid=1178634

Car and Driver review: http://autos.msn.com/research/vip/review.aspx?year=2012&make=Jeep&model=Grand%20Cherokee&cp-documentid=1179294

 

Like one reviewer says, "There’s little else with the same huge span of off-road prowess and on-road refinement."

post #189 of 426
Thread Starter 


a lot of us are saying the same thing!  So true.  

Quote:
Originally Posted by AustinFromSA View Post

And if I haven't said it already, I'm a HUGE Subaru fan. Unstoppable winter machines! However, the new Grand Cherokee blows the Subaru interiors out of the water. You get way more bang for your buck. Not to mention, true off-road capability to boot. Most people don't need SUV's and their off-roadability and crappy gas mileage, however, it sounds like Finndog may really take advantage of something like a Jeep. I still can't believe I'm even halfway recommending a Chrysler related vehicle. That's how much they've changed my mind with this latest batch of products.

 

The msn reviewers also seem to like it a lot:

http://autos.msn.com/research/vip/review.aspx?year=2012&make=Jeep&model=Grand%20Cherokee&cp-documentid=1154467

http://autos.msn.com/research/vip/review.aspx?year=2012&make=Jeep&model=Grand%20Cherokee&cp-documentid=1178634

Car and Driver review: http://autos.msn.com/research/vip/review.aspx?year=2012&make=Jeep&model=Grand%20Cherokee&cp-documentid=1179294

 

Like one reviewer says, "There’s little else with the same huge span of off-road prowess and on-road refinement."



 

post #190 of 426

Loyal Subaru guy here. I just drove the latest generation Outback (4cyl. CVT) for the second time (because I didn't trust my first reaction) and I STILL didn't like it. Just felt sloppy to me.

post #191 of 426
Quote:
Originally Posted by Finndog View Post



wow, across steamboat in 30 seconds! biggrin.gif

Quote:
Originally Posted by Finndog View Post


a lot of us are saying the same thing!  So true.  



 


Just keep in mind the the base model is just a AWD crossover with a fully independent suspension. It does not have a low range range transfer case and has a the usual electronic traction system along with some 'modes' you can select for telling the computer what you are doing. Really nothing there to distinguish from the Outback, which is also an AWD crossover with a fully independent suspension and smart brakes.

The Pentastar would be fine, but not exciting given the curb weight and the fuel economy advantage would diminish as you'll need a heavier foot around here with a V6.

So....you will pay the usual SUV premium to get the V8 and the increased capability that includes the low range t-case. Don't get me wrong, I think Jeep finally got the looks right, just pay attention at the cost of the features that will really distinguish the GC from other alternatives (if that matters to you).
post #192 of 426


That was my impression with the newer models as well.  Suspension was just not tight and confidence inspiring.  Felt more "Camry" like.
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by qcanoe View Post

Loyal Subaru guy here. I just drove the latest generation Outback (4cyl. CVT) for the second time (because I didn't trust my first reaction) and I STILL didn't like it. Just felt sloppy to me.



 

 

post #193 of 426
Quote:
Originally Posted by Simplemind View Post


 Felt more "Camry" like.
 

 

 

Ouch!

post #194 of 426
Quote:
Originally Posted by NayBreak View Post

As the pic is taken over the hood of a truck biggrin.gif

 

This is all good until say you run into some old crystallized snow on a ledge run in late July, and have no low range, no diff locks, and no aggressive tires with excellent lateral traction to idle across.  Key words are 'chances are'.

 

 


Wrong. Care to try again as to what vehicle is in that picture?

 

289_30582372896_597012896_625255_9249_n.jpg
 

It also happens to be a Subaru with a low range and locking diffs, so...

 

Anyways, I've also taken my Outbacks and my current Forester up this stuff without issue. 

post #195 of 426
Quote:
Originally Posted by qcanoe View Post

Loyal Subaru guy here. I just drove the latest generation Outback (4cyl. CVT) for the second time (because I didn't trust my first reaction) and I STILL didn't like it. Just felt sloppy to me.



I agree that I DID NOT LIKE the current Outback. The 2008 and earlier ones were some awesome vehicles- Turbocharged, stickshoft, elegant and understated design.  The earlier models seemed more responsive.

 

For the last few years, Subaru seems to be trying to move away from its "quirk" image, but I think they are missing the mark.  The reason the design and ride of the Camry is so freaking boring is because Toyota knows their reputation for quality is what sells the vehicle, and they want a boring ride and boring styling to keep from turning off the mass-market.

 

When you are a lesser known care company, boring models don't sell.

 

post #196 of 426


Ha Ha Ha. No. Ebay turbo kits are almost 100% bullshit and garbage.  The claim is always that it is a "kit" for a given vehicle, but the kit consists of a chinese made turbocharger, intercooler, a handfull of off-the shelf pipe bends, and some various other cheap chinese crap to make the kit seem valuable to somebody that doesn't know better. The only thing making it specific to a vahicle is the auction title.  The most difficult part in adding an aftermarket turbocharger to a vehicle not originally equipped is the custom exhaust manifold, and surprise, none of these kits have that, it requires some good hot-rodding knowledge to properly fabricate, and a performance shop (if they can handle the work) would cost you $$$ to make one.

 

I have no ideo if there is a turbo kit out there for a new GC (doubtful considering it is NEW), but it is NOT a cheap endeavor, and NOT something the average mechanically inclined person can pull off.

 


 

 

post #197 of 426
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rossi Smash View Post



I thought it was "the two happiest days of a boat owner, the day they buy it and the day they sell it"!

 



 



Quote:
Originally Posted by Finndog View Post

Remember the cardinal rule of boats-  they are great as long as someone else owns them...biggrin.gif



You've never owned a Correct Craft!

 

 

TGR: http://www.planetnautique.com/vb3/

Epicski: http://www.correctcraftfan.com/

post #198 of 426

Boats meh. Any self respecting skier goes and gets himself a Jet ski (a real one, not a couch), or a Superjet.

 

Imagine all the shit you would do on skis if you didn't have to worry about dying when you land.

 

_BLOWS~1.JPG

 

Plus, your subaru can tow a six pack of them without even breathing hard.

post #199 of 426

audi-a4-superavant.jpg

A4 SuperAvant

post #200 of 426
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roadrash View Post

Get a used CPO Audi Q7 or Volvo XC-60 and don't pay the 20-30% depreciation when you drive that new car off the lot.



I would not buy either of these due to quality issues down the road. We had a Volvo CPO from a dealer that cost 30, we spent 7-8K on repairs over the next few years after warranty and sold it for 6K. That is a min.31K loss. Volvo can kiss my butt.  I have an Outback now. for going on 4 years/100,000 miles. Great car. We live near South Lake Tahoe. Lots of back country roads. I put some Yokohama Geolanders on it and it went up unplowed jeeper roads with no problem till I bottomed out. I have taken it up roads in Death Valley where folks are surprised to see a car, too. It just goes.

 

If it is tops on your list, I do not think you will regret it. I get close to 25 mpg in all mountain driving from 3000 to 7000 feet elevation 3-4 time a week in winter. I bought the cheapest model they have and it has been a great car. So far I have put about 600 dollars in maintenance and repairs on it-Rt CV Joint and alignment.  Super low cost of ownership, if you ask me. Here in El Dorado Co, CA I could sell it for a good price too. Hold value. When we drive it is like the official car of our area. Look around in mountain towns and a lot of the locals have them, no poser Land Rovers, etc. for me.

 

post #201 of 426
Quote:
Originally Posted by str8d0wn View Post

 

If it is tops on your list, I do not think you will regret it. I get close to 25 mpg in all mountain driving from 3000 to 7000 feet elevation 3-4 time a week in winter. I bought the cheapest model they have and it has been a great car. So far I have put about 600 dollars in maintenance and repairs on it-Rt CV Joint and alignment.  Super low cost of ownership, if you ask me. Here in El Dorado Co, CA I could sell it for a good price too. Hold value. When we drive it is like the official car of our area. Look around in mountain towns and a lot of the locals have them, no poser Land Rovers, etc. for me.

 



I would agree on the low cost of ownership. I've owned a crapload of them, and I've bought them from the full spectrum of brand new to 250,000 miles and beat to crap.  My first one (the white GL in the picture above) was given to me by a co-worker. It was non-running with 250,000 miles. I found it needed to have the alternator rewired and spark plug wires replaced. It needed nothing else but oil changes for 25,000 miles, and then the oil pump seals gave out- New timing belt and seals for $300 and a weekend, no more work for another 25,000 ish miles, and it was still running strong when it was rearended and destroyed. I became a Subaru convert because the free car with over double the milage had less rattles and felt more put together than my Pontiac. Sad.

 

I replaced it with a 1987 GL with 180,000 that stayed in my family for about a decade. At about 230,000, one of the cam seals went out, and I had to replace the cam and the bearings on that side. Around that time I replaced the front axles. Around 290,000, the driveshaft went out, and then the car was retired last summer when the main oil seal went out in a big way. It had about 320,000 on it.  We could have replaced the oil seal and kept going, but it was a $600-$700 repair in a car worth maybe $500 (was purchased from a buy here/pay here lot a decade before for $1,100. I think I put about $1,500 in the car over ten years- ridiculously low repair costs for a 200,000+ mile car that got beat to hell. Even with that low cost, I still did more work to this one than the others (and this one was MUCH less reliable).

 

Bought a 1990 Legacy wag for $800 with about 120,000 on the clock. This is the only one that died an untimely mechanical death. After owning for about a year, in preparation of it towing my jet skis across the country, I changed the timing belt. A week later, one of the camshafts snapped in half. No idea how it happened, I suppose I could have screwed up the timing belt, but doubt it would have ran for a week. I;ve never heard of this being a problem- no idea. The car would have been quite fixable, but I needed to use a car for the trip the following week, so rather than work on it, I dumped it and bought a 1996 Outback.

 

1996 Outback with 160,000 miles. No issues. I had it for two years, the only thing I changed was the alternator and tires. Drunk driver tagged it when it was parked on the street.

 

1999 Outback with 138,000 miles. At 175,000 miles (75,000 miles past what the book recommends) it needed the valve shims adjusted to clear up a misfire. I think I replaced a knock sensor on it too. I decided I wanted to buy a turbo model, and sold it.

 

2010 Forester XT- It has 45,000 miles on it (in 1 1/2 years- ouch). It has had warranty work to replace the radio when the display started to overheat and shut off, and to replace clips on a trim piece that I broke.  About 1/4 of the miles on it are towing either a hi-low camp trailer at the ragged edge of its tow limit, or my jet ski rig. Its pulled the camp trailer up on top of Grand Mesa (6,000+ vertical feet continous climb to 11,000 feet over 25 miles) without issue in the middle of Summer.

 

 

 

post #202 of 426
Quote:
 Posted by anachronism View Post


I've owned a crapload of them,

 

 

 



See, Anac is hooked on them. Great story about all these, too. Thanks! I was considering some other cars to replace mine, but looks like I should keep it. It ONLY has 100K on it. Just need to do the timing belt.

post #203 of 426
Quote:
Originally Posted by str8d0wn View Post



till I bottomed out

 


 

That's the whole point of getting an suv versus a car. Those giant tires and big lifts are to improve clearance and suspension travel.  Torque/power/tire grip is very rarely the problem  and tires can be gotten for almost any car.

post #204 of 426
Thread Starter 

reviving this for new (to me) Subie 2013 info.

 

http://www.subaru.com/autoshow/2012/new-york.html   Skip forward till about 6:30

 

 

looks like they are putting a new 2.5L DOHC in the subie as well as givng the suspension a tightening and improved handling?  Any insight on the "new 2.5"   I found some interesting info that on paper appears there were more changes than I expected.  The 2.5 may be a real viable option now with the increased low-end torque and increased MPG.  a few other niceties like new improved headlights, new roof racks and a couple of otherf minor tweaks. I don't see the need for all the lane departure and other fancy stuff.

 

 

http://www.trucktrend.com/features/news/2012/163_2012_2013_subaru_out_back_first_look/index.html


Edited by Finndog - 4/11/12 at 2:03pm
post #205 of 426

I wonder what the real world application of the Eye Sight with TSA option is?

 

http://www.subaru.com/company/news/2012_april.html#2012_april_full_eyesight

 

Is it to check for hidden firearms when you're approaching your local crack dealer to buy a rock?

post #206 of 426
Thread Starter 

 Any chance it wasn't an April fools joke?   rolleyes.gif

 

CHERRY HILL, N.J., April 1, 2012 -- Subaru of America, Inc. has announced that its new EyeSight™ driver assistance system (due for debut at the 2012 New York International Auto Show) will be available with optional "TSA" software. The software takes advantage of EyeSight's pedestrian recognition capability and integrates airport security body scanning software as used by the Transport Security Administration at airports to send images to a cell phone that can identify hidden objects on people situated in front of an equipped vehicle.

 

 

and 

 

 


"EyeSight is not designed as a substitute for due care and attention to the road. The system may not react in every situation. There are certain operational limitations, such as when weather conditions obscure the view of the cameras. Finally, even with the advanced technology used, a driver with good vision and who is paying attention will always be the best safety system. Oh, and the TSA option doesn't really exist. It's April 1, isn't it?

 

 

post #207 of 426
Thread Starter 

very good article with more details of changes. Improved seating materials, new dash lights, re-sculpted grill too. reduced body roll by 40%  2nd generation cvt trans

 

http://www.theautochannel.com/news/2012/04/05/031605-2013-subaru-outback-restyled-model-debuts-2012-new-york-international.html

 

lots of pictures

 

http://www.motortrend.com/auto_shows/new_york/2012/1203_2012_new_york_2013_subaru_outback_and_2014_subaru_legacy/photo_10.html#photo


Edited by Finndog - 4/11/12 at 4:01pm
post #208 of 426
Quote:
Originally Posted by Finndog View Post

very good article with more details of changes. Improved seating materials, new dash lights, re-sculpted grill too. reduced body roll by 40%  2nd generation cvt trans

 

http://www.theautochannel.com/news/2012/04/05/031605-2013-subaru-outback-restyled-model-debuts-2012-new-york-international.html

 

lots of pictures

 

http://www.motortrend.com/auto_shows/new_york/2012/1203_2012_new_york_2013_subaru_outback_and_2014_subaru_legacy/photo_10.html#photo

 

I really like my 2012.....for the most part.

 

Less body roll would certainly be nice, tho.

The new grill looks a bit better, but then it would be hard not to...  rolleyes.gif
 

 

post #209 of 426
Quote:
Originally Posted by Finndog View Post

 Any chance it wasn't an April fools joke?   rolleyes.gif

 

CHERRY HILL, N.J., April 1, 2012 -- Subaru of America, Inc. has announced that its new EyeSight™ driver assistance system (due for debut at the 2012 New York International Auto Show) will be available with optional "TSA" software. The software takes advantage of EyeSight's pedestrian recognition capability and integrates airport security body scanning software as used by the Transport Security Administration at airports to send images to a cell phone that can identify hidden objects on people situated in front of an equipped vehicle.

 

 

and 

 

 


"EyeSight is not designed as a substitute for due care and attention to the road. The system may not react in every situation. There are certain operational limitations, such as when weather conditions obscure the view of the cameras. Finally, even with the advanced technology used, a driver with good vision and who is paying attention will always be the best safety system. Oh, and the TSA option doesn't really exist. It's April 1, isn't it?

 

 


I said, "Is it to check for hidden firearms when you're approaching your local crack dealer to buy a rock?" but I refuse to put winky-face smiley emoticons.

 

post #210 of 426
Thread Starter 

I was surprised to see the new engine, 2nd gen CVT and suspension changes. I couldn't find any reviews on the new 2.5's actual, on the road performance but it seems that the reworking of the CVT in conjunction with a little more torque may add up to be fairly significant. an advertised 40% less roll is significant as long as they didn't just tighten up the suspension making it tweaky. I didn't see a description on how this was accomplished. The rest is nice but not significant.  
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Skierish View Post

 

I really like my 2012.....for the most part.

 

Less body roll would certainly be nice, tho.

The new grill looks a bit better, but then it would be hard not to...  rolleyes.gif
 

 



 

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Automotive/Car Talk