Can anyone recommend me a wagon?

doug s. · « **Reply #60 on:** 24 Feb 2010, 02:27 am »

Quote from: macrojack on 23 Feb 2010, 02:54 am

2004 or 2005 Toyota Matrix XRS or Pontiac Vibe GT. They're the same car made in the same factory in Fresno, Ca. It has 180 hp, 6 speed manual, 4 wheel discs, sport suspension, etc. And far more room than you might imagine. It's really a stylish looking Corolla wagon.

if these are anything like the new ones, i would stay away. i drove a 2009 pontiac wibe, and it was a real pig, imo... even a chevy aveo was more fun to drive...

doug s.

doug s. · « **Reply #61 on:** 24 Feb 2010, 02:32 am »

Quote from: ooheadsoo on 23 Feb 2010, 08:02 am

I have a Mazdaspeed3. Very fun car, if a bit manic. On the mean streets of LA, I find it difficult to accelerate with aggressive traffic - I can drive like a lamb and fall behind, or I can hit the turbo range and take off like an out of control bat out of hell and rear end the guy in front of me. I know it's out of your price range.

However, I did test drive the regular Mazda3 hatch, and the handling was quite impressive. With a manual transmission, I think you can still squeeze out quite a bit of fun with it. Otherwise, the old Scion xB with a few modifications should also a blast. My friend, racing (on a closed course) his S2000 always relates to me the time he was behind an old xB and how he couldn't close the gap between them. If anything, the xB was pulling away on the straights. No idea if/how the xB was modified. If the new xB is any indication, however, the gearbox feels pretty flimsy. Maybe Doug could share more about that.

On a side note, I'm not very impressed with the speed3 sound system. You might do better with a "grand touring" trim mazda3.

re: my gen1 scion xb's manual gearbox, it is excellent. there are quick-shift kits awailable for <$100, but tho likely fun, it certainly isn't necessary. i'd awoid the gen2 scions; they look like any other compact suv, and act like it, too, having gained 800+ lbs, and w/fuel economy ratings at 21/28, instead of 31/34...

if a gen1 scion xb was pulling away from a honda s2000 on the straights, you can be sure its engine was modded, likely w/a turbo or supercharger kit. but, the handling on the gen1 xb's is for real; these truly act like sportscars.

doug s.

Bob in St. Louis · « **Reply #62 on:** 24 Feb 2010, 02:37 am »

Quote from: doug s. on 24 Feb 2010, 02:24 am

that car is a rebadged subaru wrx; may as well yust get the real thing...

doug s.

It's not the WRX, it's just the 'regular' Impreza.
But otherwise, I agree. From a guy that works at a Saab dealer, I'd tell you to go buy the Subaru instead of something rebadged by Saab.
Rebadged vehicles are a HUGE pain in the ass. Think about this.....The Saab mechanic that you expect to fix your car correctly the first time you bring it in will pop the hood on this machine and not be able to identify most of the sensors on this engine.
Yea, really. Think about that for a while.
Rebadging is only good for the manufacturers. That goes for the "Saab" 9-7 too. That's better serviced at the Chevy dealer since it's a Chevy Trailblazer.

Bob

doug s. · « **Reply #63 on:** 24 Feb 2010, 02:44 am »

Quote from: Bob in St. Louis on 24 Feb 2010, 02:37 am

It's not the WRX, it's just the 'regular' Impreza.
But otherwise, I agree. From a guy that works at a Saab dealer, I'd tell you to go buy the Subaru instead of something rebadged by Saab.
Rebadged vehicles are a HUGE pain in the ass. Think about this.....The Saab mechanic that you expect to fix your car correctly the first time you bring it in will pop the hood on this machine and not be able to identify most of the sensors on this engine.
Yea, really. Think about that for a while.
Rebadging is only good for the manufacturers. That goes for the "Saab" 9-7 too. That's better serviced at the Chevy dealer since it's a Chevy Trailblazer.

Bob

hmm... i thought the saab 9-2 made ~225hp, like the wrx. i know a guy at work who has a 9-7; i yust shake my head in wonder every time i see it. of course, i'd likely do the same, even if it was a trailblazer.

doug s.

PMAT · « **Reply #64 on:** 24 Feb 2010, 02:46 am »

I work at a Subaru dealership and we service that Saab as a Subaru. the vehicle is completely a Subaru. Here is the thing. I recently had both on the used lot and they were identical vehicles in the same color and within 2k miles on the odo. The Saab sold for 3k less and the guy was ecstatic. The Subaru version sold for more because it was recognizable. Both cars were shown to about 10 people each. People just couldn't get a grip on the Saab badge. Same damn car. I would have bought the Saab.

Christof · « **Reply #65 on:** 24 Feb 2010, 12:43 pm »

Quote from: Bob in St. Louis on 24 Feb 2010, 02:37 am

It's not the WRX, it's just the 'regular' Impreza.
But otherwise, I agree. From a guy that works at a Saab dealer, I'd tell you to go buy the Subaru instead of something rebadged by Saab.
Rebadged vehicles are a HUGE pain in the ass. Think about this.....The Saab mechanic that you expect to fix your car correctly the first time you bring it in will pop the hood on this machine and not be able to identify most of the sensors on this engine.
Yea, really. Think about that for a while.
Rebadging is only good for the manufacturers. That goes for the "Saab" 9-7 too. That's better serviced at the Chevy dealer since it's a Chevy Trailblazer.

Bob

9-2x Aero has the Impreza WRX engine and the steering system of the STI WRX. I had forgot to mention that I would only go for the 9-2X Aero model. The 9-2X Linear model is a lame duck IMO.

slbenz · « **Reply #66 on:** 24 Feb 2010, 02:17 pm »

Currently own a 2000 Saab 9-5 Aero wagon that has been trouble-free. Only had to do routine maintenance and the occasional replacement of worn out parts. Great gas mileage, performance and comfort. This is my third Saab that I have owned. Actually much easier to work on than the several Mercedes Benzes that I have owned. Less expensive to fix as well. I wouldn't hesitate purchasing another Saab. At least for me, they are not crap.

Quote from: drphoto on 22 Feb 2010, 10:59 pm

Ok, call me weird, but I like station wagons. I'm sick of SUV's, I like my T&C van for the most part.....but it's boring to drive and gets nearly as bad milage as my previous Trooper.

I love the quirky looks of the Saab 9-5, but they're known to be crap, so I'd set my sights on a 2001/2002 Volvo V70, but then a little research shows they had serious tranny issues. Any owners of these here who know differently?

I really like the Mazda 3s hatch, but it's pretty small.

What's left? The Subie Outback?

I'm ONLY looking at used (max price $10K) which rules out the new VW Jetta. (be sweet w/ that new diesel)

JimJ · « **Reply #67 on:** 24 Feb 2010, 02:43 pm »

baldrick · « **Reply #68 on:** 24 Feb 2010, 02:49 pm »

James Bond's family car?

bunnyma357 · « **Reply #69 on:** 24 Feb 2010, 03:00 pm »

Harold & Maude Jag/Hearse

Datsun 510 Wagon

My top 2 choices, but I'd probably end up going with a Subaru Legacy wagon.

Jim C

Lyndon · « **Reply #70 on:** 24 Feb 2010, 03:01 pm »

We are killing poor drphoto with off topic cars!
Forget the Aston Martin
How about the Volvo p1800?

Or the MGB-GT? Cue Richard Thompson's song....

Amazon page:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0011XGFAE/ref=dm_sp_alb?ie=UTF8&qid=1267023614&sr=8-1
Cut 4

mort · « **Reply #71 on:** 24 Feb 2010, 04:27 pm »

Just yeserday I saw a perfectly restored Volvo p1800 What a cool car!!!

brj · « **Reply #72 on:** 24 Feb 2010, 06:50 pm »

For what it's worth, I've been heavily researching AWD "sport" wagons for the past 1.5 weeks, and less aggressively for several months before that.

The 2006 Saab 9-2x Aero was originally my favorite compromise, but I ultimately decided that it was just too small for my needs, even if it would have been a blast to drive. This is really a rebadged 2006 Subaru Impreza WRX with a different grill and headlights, a slightly different suspension tuning, a bit more acoustic deadening, and some other minor cosmetic changes. A good source of info is the saab92x.com forum. Start here:

http://saab92x.com/viewtopic.php?id=23467

And yes, they are rare, with only 235 manual/135 automatic shipped to the US in 2006. 2006 has the 2.5L turbo engine rather than the 2.0L turbo engine in 2005. ("Aero" models have the turbo, the "Linear" models do not.) The packages also changed between years. There are also modifications galore for these vehicles, should you be so inclined, allowing for some truly impressive performance gains from what is already a most impressive "sleeper" vehicle. Oddly enough, a 2006 9-2x Aero owning coworker of mine informed me that while the Saab Aero and Subaru WRX are mechanically identical, the Saab version is cheaper to insure, primarily based purely on the demographics of who buys the different brands.

Other than that, I've test driven the Subaru Outback XT (2.5L turbo boxer 4 cyl), Volvo V50 T5 (2.5L turbo 5 cyl), Audi A4 2.0T Avant (2.0L turbo 4 cyl) and a BMW 328 XIT (3.0L naturally aspirated inline 6 cyl) all within the last week. All were 2007 automatics, since that was what was easily on hand. (All of the automatic transmissions have some form of "manu-matic", however, should you want to spool the engine or control your shift points for performance reasons.) Note that I've been focusing on the 2005-2008 age range with a cross between something fun to drive and something adapted to playing in the Colorado mountains, thus my focus on AWD and the need for at least a reasonable amount space so that I can haul gear. It sounds like your needs are a little different, but perhaps this will still be useful.

The Volvo actually had the smoothest powertrain of any of the turbos. I was really surprised at the stunningly minimal turbo lag. It also seemed to have slightly more power on tap for highway speed passing than the Audi. (Subaru was similar to the Volvo at highway speeds, but had more turbo lag. It looks like you can smooth out the dip in the torque curve with some fairly basic aftermarket mods, however.) Oddly, the Audi and BMW had the worst power/weight ratios, which explains some of the acceleration differences, even if they had the better handling.

The Audi was the most fun to drive, as it had the best "throw it around" factor. It had the lightest steering and tightest suspension. The BMW was similar on suspension, but the steering felt a bit heavier at lower speeds. The BMW would move when you got the revs up, but still lacked power compared to the turbos. (Important note - I was test driving these at over 5000 ft elevation, so at sea level, the difference may not be as significant.)

Visibility was best in the Subaru, followed by the Volvo, then Audi, then BMW. Looks are subjective, but all looked better in person than in photos. The Subaru wins by a landslide in ground clearance, which you pay for a bit in terms of suspension stiffness, but not as much as I expected. (The boxer engine configuration apparently keeps the center of gravity lower than most other engine types, minimizing the effects of the 8.7" of clearance.) All of them had enough interior space for my needs, although the Outback had the most.

The Subaru also wins on the lowest long term cost of ownership by a significant amount, especially here in CO where Subarus are practically the state car. Audi's scare me in this regard, as everyone I've ever known that had one has horror stories of multiple expensive repairs. The BMWs seem to cost as much as the Audi's to fix, but don't need it as often. I don't know as much about the Volvos in this regard, although I've had two different guys in the auto locater business indicate problems with Volvos. I have no doubt that Bob in St. Louis can comment on these aspects far more than I.

The Subaru was the cheapest to insure, followed by the Volvo. I didn't quote out the Audi and BMW, as I don't think I can justify their long term cost even if I do relish their performance.

For quick side-by-side comparisons of up to 5 vehicles, I've found the http://autos.aol.com/cars-compare website quite handy.

Hope that was useful!

baldrick · « **Reply #73 on:** 24 Feb 2010, 07:00 pm »

Pardon me while I prepare to rant.

I had a Volvo V50 in Europe. It is miles better than the V50 T5 we have here in North America.

And the reason for that is the spectacular 2.0 L turbodiesel engine and 6 speed manual transmission. The 2.5 L turbodiesel is even better. It's also quieter, smoother and has better handling. I got 1100 km per tank regularly. I could drive it at 150-160 km per hour on the highways and still get better than 8L / 100km (30 mpg). Normal driving netted me 5.5L / 100 km (42 mpg)

Why automakers don't give us proper small diesel engines like they supply in Europe is totally incomprehensible to me. If you could improve your fuel milage by 30% right now while improving your car's performance wouldn't you jump at that chance?

(rant complete)

TheChairGuy · « **Reply #74 on:** 24 Feb 2010, 07:35 pm »

Quote from: baldrick on 24 Feb 2010, 07:00 pm

Why automakers don't give us proper small diesel engines like they supply in Europe is totally incomprehensible to me. If you could improve your fuel milage by 30% right now while improving your car's performance wouldn't you jump at that chance?

They're here

...see VW's 2.0 turbodiesel...especially in tandem with their winning DSG transmission (better mileage than a manual with faster shifts, too, in manual mode)

John

baldrick · « **Reply #75 on:** 24 Feb 2010, 07:48 pm »

Sure, but when are GM, Ford, Chrysler, Honda, Toyota, Subaru, Hyundai, Mitsubishi, even Mercedes, Audi, & BMW going to offer us what's available over there? Even the lowly Ford Focus has a proper 1.6L common rail turbodiesel that's way better than average.

Bob in St. Louis · « **Reply #76 on:** 24 Feb 2010, 08:18 pm »

We're not that concerned about money or fuel consumption to have diesels here.

Bob

macrojack · « **Reply #77 on:** 24 Feb 2010, 08:38 pm »

I agree with Bob.

Tyson · « **Reply #78 on:** 24 Feb 2010, 08:44 pm »

We need to move away from gas or diesel entirely, toward a fully electric car. Then we can dump our oil needs, and plug into the grid. Of course, said grid can be nuclear powered.

I've never understood, why do people feel the need "performance" in a car? WTF, are you out on a racing track or something? Cars are for transport, only. If you are "pushing" your car, you are driving recklessly, and you are putting other people in danger. The only worse thing you could do would to be drunk while you did it.

thunderbrick · « **Reply #79 on:** 24 Feb 2010, 08:46 pm »

I would have agreed, but years ago I had one of those GM gas conversion/diesel cars (yes, it was a wagon) that had such a terrible reputation, and LOVED it. I bought it real cheap, put 100K on it and only lost about $3,000 when I sold it. You couldn't hot-rod it like a 5.7L, but it was silent on the highway, and almost no repairs. I'd buy another diesel in heartbeat.