or Connect
EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Ski Gear Discussion › Automotive/Car Talk › SUVs or crossovers with manual transmission (imports)?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

SUVs or crossovers with manual transmission (imports)? - Page 5

post #121 of 172

 

So it’s fortunate that I stumbled across this thread. Thanks to all who’ve posted their pov’s.

 

My son, Baz Jr. got hit from behind last week. He’s just fine, but our old car is a total loss. (All things considered, we’re fortunate. Got the call from Jr., not a hospital or Florida Highway Patrol officer.)

 

Now find myself in the market for just such a vehicle that this thread addresses. Spoke with our local mechanic, and he’s of the opinion that we’ll be just fine, (as regards reliability, and within our pricing capability,) with a Subaru Forester, Honda SR-V, or Toyota RAV 4.

 

4WD is not necessary for us now as we reside in Florida, but there is a very real possibility that we may relocate to another state, so we’ve decided on that capability. Big nod in the favor of the Subaru as our local Honda dealer has no 4WDs on hand, and the Toyota folks only have them in the fancy trim lines.

 

Another major draw of the Subaru is that it is hypothetically available with a 5 speed manual transmission. Supposedly the standard equipment, I’ve been to three local dealers and between them, they’ve sold 4 manuals in the past year. There is not a single one to be found at any dealership within 100 miles, and none of those dealers have any on order for the 2011 model year. Oh yeah, timing for our recent accident could not have been worse. The dealers are almost sold out of their 2010 stock, so we’ve lost some ground vis-a-vie bargaining leverage, and will have to try and swing a deal on a newer model.

 

As to the OP alexzn's query, I prefer a manual transmission 340 days a year. Only time when I would prefer an automatic is when I’m stuck on one of those seemingly endless traffic jams on the highway, that require you to engage/disengage the gears hundreds of times per mile.

 

post #122 of 172

I used to live in NEW JERSEY, home of stop and go traffic.  The whole time I lived there I owned a manual tranny. 

 

I do have to admit to having an excellent repertoire of "emergency back road detours" around most parts of the northern half of the state.
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bazzer View Post

As to the OP alexzn's query, I prefer a manual transmission 340 days a year. Only time when I would prefer an automatic is when I’m stuck on one of those seemingly endless traffic jams on the highway, that require you to engage/disengage the gears hundreds of times per mile.

 

post #123 of 172
Quote:
Originally Posted by sibhusky View Post

I used to live in NEW JERSEY, home of stop and go traffic.  The whole time I lived there I owned a manual tranny. 

 

I do have to admit to having an excellent repertoire of "emergency back road detours" around most parts of the northern half of the state.
 


 


Don't forget the traffic circle and diners. 

post #124 of 172

The thing people don't realize is, there is a different set of rules for EACH traffic circle, without any regard to NJ laws.  I distilled it into one principal:  The angle of the spoke's approach is the actual determination as to whether incoming traffic or traffic already in the traffic circle has the right of way.  Roads approaching at such an angle that there is no semblance of a right turn as you enter the circle always take the right of way.  Roads approaching at an angle that requires you to turn right will have traffic obeying NJ law.

 

There are a few "roundabouts" in Montana.  So far, it is clear that no one "gets" how they are supposed to work, either legally or under the above principal.  In fact, there is one here in Whitefish where the "circle" itself is just a sign in the center of the intersection.  Tons of people don't get that if you want to make a left you go AROUND the sign, you don't turn in FRONT of the sign.  There was a piece on the news about a new circle in Missoula.  They planted trees in the center.  People were nervous about the trees blocking their view of the whole thing.  They didn't get that all you were supposed to worry about is the guy already in the circle who is on your left.  SHHEESH.

 

The local "diner" here failed.  IMO why?  Because they had ATTEMPTS at high level food and charged accordingly.  They didn't have DINER food with DINER prices.  What they had was diner ambiance.  Who wants to pay high prices for diner ambiance?
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Philpug View Post




Don't forget the traffic circle and diners. 

post #125 of 172

someone else with my opinion, the new suby OB is butt ugly, suby fell for the american disease, make it big,bigger,biggest! I really like that small sporty style, with the crisp handling, so long dear friend!  I am looking to update not going past 2009. and praying to find a manual tranny'

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by ScotsSkier View Post


 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Snowsport View Post

RE: Urea injection in Diesels - that's the Mercedes "Bluetec" system. How much volume does the urea canister hold, and how often do you need to refill/replace it?

 

 

I seem to recall from the Q7 forums that there were quite a few comments to the effect that the depletion rate of the fluid was more than expected and adding a few cents/mile to keep filled. 

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by VladL View Post


That I think was THE worst decision ever. With older OB Subaru has created a totaly unique product - everyone else just followed. Now its in this big SUV class... To me it sounds like they just re-branded that flopped Tribecca SUV and just killed the Legacy-based OB. I was looking for the SUV just around the time when they switched and decided to go 4Runner since it is already just "which SUV" decision and I never regretted it.

 


 

IMHO Subaru has lost the plot here.  While the old legacy/OB was a good looking wagon the new one just looks gross, kinda like the Barry Bonds of SWs  .   Doesn't remotely resemble an SUV  (which at least would give it some character).  I have no doubt it is still a good drive, just looks butt ugly (and i speak as a subie fan having owned the original (Euro) Impreza turbo and an STI) .     let the flaming from the subie fans begin

post #126 of 172

The new Outback is ugly, not fun to drive, and a phenomonal car for the money and terrific ski car.  It's also about the only thing left in it's segment with a stick.  The stick actually gets 2mpg less than the CVT auto, but it's nicer to drive and $1000 cheaper. I always beat the sticker in my sticks, too.  With either trans, on a highway road trip, which is where you'll spend most of your time on a ski trip, the Subaru will get around 30 mpg (important on frequent trips), have a very nice ride, be reliable, have great snow traction, and it has GOBS of space.  It's huge inside- plenty of room for 3 people and a weekend's worth of gear with space to spare.  With my International Mountain Bike Association discount I get it at just under invoice with no haggling, too.

 

That said, I'm tempted to get the V6 RAV4 anyway.  It's less comfortable, automatic, and more expensive than the 4-cyl Outback, but has tons of power, better handling, and is better for hauling bikes (taller cargo area).  Rated mpg is only 1 mpg less than the subie, but I hear real world I'm looking more at low 20's vs. almost 30, which is significant.

 

The stick is a dying breed.  Fortunately, automatics are getting really good- especially in the higher end cars.  The 6-speed ZF auto in the BMW 335i and several other luxury cars is fantastic.

 

Oh yeah- speaking of lux cars, I don't think ANY of the luxury wagons and SUVs have manuals any more.

post #127 of 172

I didn't read teh entire thread but if you are willing to go US the unlimited wrangler is a great car. It still has the Iconic look of the two door but with way more room. Plus you can get a little rock crawlin in even with the most basic options right out of the box beercheer.gif. Makes summers way more fun 

post #128 of 172

^^

OH YEAH! The Wrangler Unlimited even has 4 doors! A Jeep would be a great option.

post #129 of 172

The lack of a real roof on the Wrangler bugs me a bit. With the real soft top, I'd always be a little scared of an overnight dump caving it in, and even with the removable hard top I still don't feel like it would keep the heat in as well.

 

I wish Subaru still made a Legacy wagon. I know there's the Outback, but I don't think the extra ride height is necessary in a ski car, and the body cladding is ugly. Japan has a non-outback Legacy wagon, and it looks great.

 

This is going to be my first ski year without a 4WD. I'm going to miss the way my 2002 WRX sedan handled on the snow, but the bad fuel economy just wasn't worth it during the rest of the year, and my new (as of last year) Civic sedan actually has room for a couple pairs of 180s or even 190s with the back seats folded down, which is pretty cool.

post #130 of 172

So far I have had no problems with heat in the jeep. The thing cranks heat and I usually end up having to turn the heat off for a while. No really cold days yet only got it in may but have had at least one single digit day and the thing was toasty. I have a hard top btw 

post #131 of 172
Thread Starter 

MaxArcher- Civic is a pretty nice car, but here in the West 4WD is not a choice, it is pretty much a necessity, because of the chain controls,  you loose at least 30-40 minutes each way if you hve to put on chains, drive slower, and then take the chains off.  

 

carve- technically your statement is not true- you can still get a couple of luxury SUVs and vagons with a stick.  BMW X3 and Porche Cayenne come with a stick in base models, and I think you can get a 535xi wagon with a stick (which would be a delicious ski car).  

 

I drove a Jeep Wrangler this summer.  Should be great fun off-road and on a ski trip, but it would suck as a daily commuter. 

post #132 of 172

I'm in the west myself, I'll be taking the car to Tahoe. Don't they still require chains on 4WDs if you don't have dedicated snow tires? I remember them making me put them on my Subaru.

 

I would have loved to get another 4WD and have an easy ski car, but the 20 days (if I'm lucky) that I'll spend on snowy roads get outweighed by the other 345 days of the year that I'm on clear tarmac at sea level. I'm not advocating a 2WD for any kind of snow use, obviously 4WD/AWD is vastly superior, and it's an obvious choice for a real serious skier.
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by alexzn View Post

MaxArcher- Civic is a pretty nice car, but here in the West 4WD is not a choice, it is pretty much a necessity, because of the chain controls,  you loose at least 30-40 minutes each way if you hve to put on chains, drive slower, and then take the chains off.  

 

carve- technically your statement is not true- you can still get a couple of luxury SUVs and vagons with a stick.  BMW X3 and Porche Cayenne come with a stick in base models, and I think you can get a 535xi wagon with a stick (which would be a delicious ski car).  

 

I drove a Jeep Wrangler this summer.  Should be great fun off-road and on a ski trip, but it would suck as a daily commuter. 

post #133 of 172
Quote:
Originally Posted by MaxArcher View Post

I'm in the west myself, I'll be taking the car to Tahoe. Don't they still require chains on 4WDs if you don't have dedicated snow tires? I remember them making me put them on my Subaru.

 

 

I'm not sure about this. I have never seen them require chains for anything but commercial vehicles in CO. They usually just close the road if it's that bad. 

I know in Utah its 4W


 

 



Quote:
Originally Posted by alexzn View Post

I drove a Jeep Wrangler this summer.  Should be great fun off-road and on a ski trip, but it would suck as a daily commuter. 


May I inquire as to what year the jeep you drove was? The 07 and later models are significantly better as every day drivers

post #134 of 172

Oh, yeah, I think that may be the case in CO and UT. I know CA forces chains on everything, and as I recall the same is true of the Pacific Northwest states.
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by lonewolf210 View Post



Quote:
Originally Posted by MaxArcher View Post

I'm in the west myself, I'll be taking the car to Tahoe. Don't they still require chains on 4WDs if you don't have dedicated snow tires? I remember them making me put them on my Subaru.

 

 

I'm not sure about this. I have never seen them require chains for anything but commercial vehicles in CO. They usually just close the road if it's that bad. 

I know in Utah its 4W


 

 



Quote:
Originally Posted by alexzn View Post

I drove a Jeep Wrangler this summer.  Should be great fun off-road and on a ski trip, but it would suck as a daily commuter. 


May I inquire as to what year the jeep you drove was? The 07 and later models are significantly better as every day drivers

post #135 of 172
Thread Starter 
Well, technically your 4WD is supposed to have snow tires, but most all season tires have the M+S designation, that apprently counts as a snow tire for CalTrans. I have never been forced to put chains on my 4WD Honda CRVs and I would doubt that they would do that with our new car.

You obviously make tour own decisions for your situation, but for my family the convenience of not putting chans on every time it snows outweighs the fuel economy. I personally think that car in chains handles as well or better than a 4wd, but the slower speed and constant vibration made the choice to get a 4wd so much easier. I also not miss putting the chains on in the slit stopped on the side of HWY 80...
post #136 of 172
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by lonewolf210 View Post



 

I'm not sure about this. I have never seen them require chains for anything but commercial vehicles in CO. They usually just close the road if it's that bad. 

I know in Utah its 4W


 

 




May I inquire as to what year the jeep you drove was? The 07 and later models are significantly better as every day drivers





Brand new Rubicon, great car, great for going off- road and can do some commuting with pretty good utility and comfort; but no one will ever mistake it for sports sedan. One reason is the aggressive off- road tires that are noisy and do not roll smoothly , but I completely understand why they are that way.
post #137 of 172
Quote:
Originally Posted by alexzn View Post





Brand new Rubicon, great car, great for going off- road and can do some commuting with pretty good utility and comfort; but no one will ever mistake it for sports sedan. One reason is the aggressive off- road tires that are noisy and do not roll smoothly , but I completely understand why they are that way.

congrats! I have an 08 JKU rubi. Your right about no one mistaking it for a sports sedan but I still think its a pretty good ride. Drove it from Atlanta out to USAFA and found the ride quite enjoyable.

if your looking to get into off-roading check out the colorado jeep club over at jeepforum 
 

post #138 of 172
Thread Starter 
Rubicon was a friend's car, he is a dedicated and very skilled off-roader, so that is his dream car. Our new ski car can be justifiably called anti-Rubicon :-)
post #139 of 172
Quote:
Originally Posted by MaxArcher View Post

Oh, yeah, I think that may be the case in CO and UT. I know CA forces chains on everything, and as I recall the same is true of the Pacific Northwest states.
 


 


In WA, they can require chains OR 4WD, or they can flat out require chains. Those days when they require chains on 4WD, they mean it. Everyone, (including 4WD) is required to carry chains in the winter, whether you use them or not.

post #140 of 172
Quote:
Originally Posted by iWill View Post



Quote:
Originally Posted by MaxArcher View Post

Oh, yeah, I think that may be the case in CO and UT. I know CA forces chains on everything, and as I recall the same is true of the Pacific Northwest states.
 


 


In WA, they can require chains OR 4WD, or they can flat out require chains. Those days when they require chains on 4WD, they mean it. Everyone, (including 4WD) is required to carry chains in the winter, whether you use them or not.


Even if the tires are studded?
post #141 of 172

My buddy just got a new Outback with a manual tranny right off the lot in La Crosse WI.
.

post #142 of 172
Quote:
Originally Posted by MaxArcher View Post

I'm in the west myself, I'll be taking the car to Tahoe. Don't they still require chains on 4WDs if you don't have dedicated snow tires? I remember them making me put them on my Subaru.

 

I would have loved to get another 4WD and have an easy ski car, but the 20 days (if I'm lucky) that I'll spend on snowy roads get outweighed by the other 345 days of the year that I'm on clear tarmac at sea level. I'm not advocating a 2WD for any kind of snow use, obviously 4WD/AWD is vastly superior, and it's an obvious choice for a real serious skier.
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by alexzn View Post

MaxArcher- Civic is a pretty nice car, but here in the West 4WD is not a choice, it is pretty much a necessity, because of the chain controls,  you loose at least 30-40 minutes each way if you hve to put on chains, drive slower, and then take the chains off.  

 

carve- technically your statement is not true- you can still get a couple of luxury SUVs and vagons with a stick.  BMW X3 and Porche Cayenne come with a stick in base models, and I think you can get a 535xi wagon with a stick (which would be a delicious ski car).  

 

I drove a Jeep Wrangler this summer.  Should be great fun off-road and on a ski trip, but it would suck as a daily commuter. 


 


4wd isnt that superior to a FWD car with a limit slipped differential and good studded snowtires.

 

I ignored the chains signs countless time in LCC cause they started to get to the point they would flash them, then there would be clear road all the ways up as my chains slapped the road.

 

Chain laws are a way of protecting people from the LCD of people and really do suck. Also so many SUV went up that canyon with out snowtire and got stuck.

 

 

post #143 of 172


 

the thing is to anyone who can actually drive any automatic with a torque converter sucks! The one that use something other than not a torque converter still arent as smart as a good driver, Maual trans are more fun.....

 

 

and lastly Manual transimission are WAY more reliable than automatic, or even semi automatic transmissions. Simpler is better.

 

I'd like to see you back this statement up.  I was an Auto Mechanic for 20 years before I changed professions and I can tell you from a professional experience this is not true. 

post #144 of 172
Quote:
Originally Posted by alexzn View Post

Well, technically your 4WD is supposed to have snow tires, but most all season tires have the M+S designation, that apprently counts as a snow tire for CalTrans.


All is explained here and in the links therein.

 

Quote:
California Vehicle Code section 558 defines a snow-tread tire as follows: "A 'Snow-tread tire' is a tire which has a relatively deep and aggressive tread pattern compared with conventional passenger tread pattern". Snow-tread tires can be identified by examining the sidewall of the tire where the letters MS, M/S, M+S or the word MUD AND SNOW have been stamped into the sidewall. All terrain tires are usually allowed.
post #145 of 172

For I-80 up to Tahoe, the following links may be useful:

 

http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/roadinfo/wntrdriv.htm

http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/roadinfo/wo.htm

 

Basically, there are three levels of chain control.  The last level usually isn't reached because the road is already closed.  It would require a 4WD to put on chains, presumably on the front.

 

Legally, even a 4WD must carry chains.  And, the speed limit for all cars drops to 25 or 30, which is also about as fast as you'd want to go with chains.  So, while I believe the "get there faster" and "less vibration" arguments, I don't buy the "drive faster" idea.

 

Having learned to drive in a snowy place and driven various 2- and 4-wheel vehicles in Tahoe, I'm pretty happy with the current setup: 2WD minivan plus Spikes Spiders.  I prefer 2WD with metal to 4WD with just rubber.  The SS are fast and easy on and off, and work well.  I'd avoid rear wheel drive like the plague.

post #146 of 172
Quote:
Originally Posted by sibhusky View Post


 

Quote:
Originally Posted by iWill View Post





In WA, they can require chains OR 4WD, or they can flat out require chains. Those days when they require chains on 4WD, they mean it. Everyone, (including 4WD) is required to carry chains in the winter, whether you use them or not.



Even if the tires are studded?


Yes.

post #147 of 172

Quote:

Originally Posted by Xela View Post

It would require a 4WD to put on chains, presumably on the front.


Actually, they're supposed to go on the dominant wheels.  For 4WD vehicles, that's the rear.  For most AWD vehicles, that's the front.  It's a tradeoff on AWD/front-dominant cars, though -- front will improve braking, but rear will reduce spinouts.

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Xela View Post

Having learned to drive in a snowy place and driven various 2- and 4-wheel vehicles in Tahoe, I'm pretty happy with the current setup: 2WD minivan plus Spikes Spiders.  I prefer 2WD with metal to 4WD with just rubber.  The SS are fast and easy on and off, and work well.  I'd avoid rear wheel drive like the plague.


I've been trying to convince my wife to let me buy a FWD (probably a Saab 9-5 wagon) and add the SS, but she's skeptical.  I point to the improved fuel efficiency and availability of a stick, but she thinks they'll be a pain.  Gotta find a pair to play with.

post #148 of 172

The biggest pain with the Spikes Spiders is that they take up a fair amount of room in the car when they're not on.

post #149 of 172
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Xela View Post


>


Legally, even a 4WD must carry chains.  And, the speed limit for all cars drops to 25 or 30, which is also about as fast as you'd want to go with chains.  So, while I believe the "get there faster" and "less vibration" arguments, I don't buy the "drive faster" idea.



 
I am not condoning fast driving in snow, nor I drive fast there myself, but my empirical evidence tell me that the line of cars tat is going up the 80 at the faster speed is almost always 4wd cars, so drive faster argument does work.

I think 4wd with rubber have an advantage over 2wd with steel on the way up the 80, but steeled 2WD cars definitely have an advantage going downhill. Come to think about it, itmmakes perfect sense as all cars have 4 brakes, so if one pair has steel, it will brake better. I am always driving my 4wd downhill slower than most of the SUVs around me, probably pisses people off...

post #150 of 172

Reminds me of one time I was driving down 80 in snow with the chains on.  I sensed slowing beginning up ahead and prepared for it by taking my foot off the accelerator.  I looked in my rear view mirror to watch the 4WD behind me.  Apparently the driver hadn't noticed that I'd been slowing down and got excited.  They tried to veer left, but when it started going too far left, they turned right.  Then, the vehicle executed a beautiful pirouette before sliding right into the snowbank.

 

By the way, I agree that there's usually a column of 4WDs going way too fast on 80.

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Automotive/Car Talk
EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Ski Gear Discussion › Automotive/Car Talk › SUVs or crossovers with manual transmission (imports)?