New family transport time. Used recommendations?

[BRIO]

Good idea.

Big panthers are good durable cars. Not that comfortable seating 6 and the front middle only has a lap belt and the head will hit the dash in a collision. They are also less roomy in the back then you'd think. I've had one of each, Town Car, Marquis, and Crown Vic. They don't handle and at 190-225hp not the quickest.

They are ok at everything but excell at nothing. Except durability...

[LaGrasta]

Chevy Astro

• Seats 8
  with seats removed, it carries 4x8 plywood sheets with doors closed
  sleep in it
  hauls cycles in it
  tow with it
  even add a lift kit on it (built on a truck chassis)
  they are cheap to buy and run for ever
  The 4.3 V6 is a Chevy 350 with two jugs cut off, tried and true.

Mine has 205k, owned it since new, 1998 (2005 was the last year I believe)

[Tobit]

Ok.  I did a bit of re-thinking our needs so a large SUV was out.  Wife does not need to drive an Expedition every day and we're done with mini-vans of any flavor.  So, I jumped 23 years into the present from our old 225,000 mile 1995 Volvo 855T and have this parked in our driveway.  It's my fourth Volvo wagon and rides like a Caddy.  Incredible interior, nothing beats Volvo seats, and solid as a tank.  3.2l I-6, front wheel drive.  Next purchase will be a scanner and software for maintaining the Space Shuttle level electronic systems.

This car is so good that it's going into the garage next to the LeMans IV.  The first car ever to have that honor.

Web photos as it hasn't stopped raining here in days.

2008 V70.




Tobit

[oldbike54]

 Hard to beat a wagon for family transport , weird how the car companies sort of gave up on them .
Nice car 

  Dusty

[Kev m]

Sweet - enjoy!

Hard to beat a wagon for family transport , weird how the car companies sort of gave up on them .
Nice car 

  Dusty

They didn't give up on them, demand was far outstripped by crossover SUVs which really just are family wagons with taller suspensions.

[oldbike54]

Sweet - enjoy!

They didn't give up on them, demand was far outstripped by crossover SUVs which really just are family wagons with taller suspensions.

 Uh , maybe , except wagons handle like a car , even those mini SUV's are unwieldy . I still believe the companies marketed these SUV's as something they aren't , neither "sport' nor "utility" .

  Dusty

[Kev m]

Uh , maybe , except wagons handle like a car , even those mini SUV's are unwieldy . I still believe the companies marketed these SUV's as something they aren't , neither "sport' nor "utility" .

  Dusty

How many have you driven?

You'd be surprised how well SOME of them handle.

Don't judge it all just from looks.

Hell, the first new "car" I ever bought was in 1999 when the handling (and AWD/4WD system) of the then brand new WJ Grand Cherokee blew me away. It wasn't half the whale the current WK2 is.... but anyway crossover SUVs come in all shapes and sizes, and some of them handle quite well (though I guess you could also make the argument that some of them have crossed-over into the hot hatch range more than wagon at that point).

[oldbike54]

How many have you driven?

You'd be surprised how well SOME of them handle.

Don't judge it all just from looks.

Hell, the first new "car" I ever bought was in 1999 when the handling (and AWD/4WD system) of the then brand new WJ Grand Cherokee blew me away. It wasn't half the whale the current WK2 is.... but anyway crossover SUVs come in all shapes and sizes, and some of them handle quite well (though I guess you could also make the argument that some of them have crossed-over into the hot hatch range more than wagon at that point).

 Dunno , maybe 6 , all handled like an old PU .

  Dusty

[pauldaytona]

looks like new. ave fun with it. These big engines are hardly sold here, to expensive in tax, we get them with 2.0, or even 1.6.

Here we get the mini suv a lot, compared to a wagon the weigh the same, but are higher and shorther. And I love loading longer things in the back like two bicycles  for a weekend away, or diy stuff.

[John Ulrich]

Nice looking Volvo....interior looks like the day it was built.

Mini vans forever for me.  My Odyssey has more room then a Suburban, holds a 4x8 sheet of plywood.  I can pack everything needed for a rally of 100 people including the keg holder and still get 26 MPG!  In a few weeks it will haul a motorcycle, two bicycles and two months of "stuff" to AZ to get out of the snow.

[bigbikerrick]

Very Nice Tobit!  I love that interior. A parking space next to the LeMans IV is quite the honor!!
Rick.

[Scud]

I had a V70 2.5T for a while, great car, sport-wagon really.  Should have held onto it longer to pass it down to one of my kids. V70s look cool as cop cars too.

https://www.google.com/search?q=swedish+volvo+police&espv=2&biw=1397&bih=865&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj38JL33rrJAhWG7SYKHc-9CsIQsAQIGw

[Kev m]

Dunno , maybe 6 , all handled like an old PU .

  Dusty

You gotta get out more...


...even a lot of new pickups today don't handle like an old PU.

[BRIO]

Car manufacturers haven't given up on station wagons. They have given up on the U.S. market to buy the product which would actually serve their needs best. Outside 'murica they sell as always. Unfortunately, most buyers here are very emotional and more often than not it is the inner pig-dog that wins. That's not to say that some people have genuine use for an SUV but most don't. These things have come a long way since the Defenders, Wagoneers and Scouts. They still don't handle like a car all things being equal save for maybe a Cayenne with active suspension. It's simple physics. A wagon is a much more intelligent choice. Most people would be served better with a Turbodiesel station wagon. 40 mpg and passive safety is much more useful than 12 inches of ground clearance combined with rwd. Tits on a bull...

[Arizona Wayne]

I used to be a Volvo man-`59 PV544, `80 P-1800, `71 142S......'till the new 142 needed a cam @ 22k mi., and rings @ 55K miles.  Switched to a new `75 Toyota Corona wagon and have been with that brand since.  Currently we have a `01 Rav 4 and I can't imagine any other car meeting our needs now.  It has 140K mi. on the odo. and every thing works.  It pulls 1,500#(2 bikes) and get's 25-26 mpg w/it's 3 valve 2L I4 motor, 4 spd. auto.  I liked our 2.2L Corona wagon but it lacked some leg room and the roof wasn't high enough some times.  None of that is an issue now.  We only use it for 2 of us so we took out the 2 back seats and use the back for all kinds of stuff.  Never a lack of room.  Even sleep in it some times.  It's short wheelbase is a Godsend when parking.   Cornering, not so great, but I have MCs for that.    Ride is firm but OK for long drives and just the way I like it.

But I  have to admit your `08 Volvo looks like new and is sharp looking!  Hopefully it fits your needs and that's what counts.

[Tobit]

Shooting Brakes rule! 

So now that this aging Luddite, yours truly, has entered the realm of Vida Dice OBD2 scanners and a laptop in the tool chest, can a fuel injected bike be in my future?  I'm glad it isn't optioned completely.  Didn't get forced air ventilated seats, the parking assist, the radar adaptive cruise control and braking system or lutefisk warming oven.  Not even the Swedish meatball seat warmers.  Does have brake rotor temp sensors and other nonsense just waiting to rear their little electronic heads and direct me to a dealership via the dash display.  Sorry, never been to one and not going now.  My first non-Turbo Volvo.  Wonder if there's a Screamin' Herring Stage I kit for this thing?  Oh well, it's the wife's car after all.

Tjobit, ja.

[Kev m]

Car manufacturers haven't given up on station wagons. They have given up on the U.S. market to buy the product which would actually serve their needs best. Outside 'murica they sell as always. Unfortunately, most buyers here are very emotional and more often than not it is the inner pig-dog that wins. That's not to say that some people have genuine use for an SUV but most don't. These things have come a long way since the Defenders, Wagoneers and Scouts. They still don't handle like a car all things being equal save for maybe a Cayenne with active suspension. It's simple physics. A wagon is a much more intelligent choice. Most people would be served better with a Turbodiesel station wagon. 40 mpg and passive safety is much more useful than 12 inches of ground clearance combined with rwd. Tits on a bull...

That post is a bunch of righteous indignation wrapped in your preferences sold as fact.

1. America is not like much of say Europe geographically. What serves them best doesn't necessarily serve us best.

2. If you're going argue NEEDS then perhaps you might recognize there are probably other ways than individually owned internal combustion engines to serve needs and once you admit that YOUR choices become as absurd and everyone else's.

3. Handling like a car? Is that damning with faint praise? Again, poor generalization. On AVERAGE that might be true, but most wagons weren't exactly the benchmark of handling and there are certainly plenty of SUVs (largely crossovers) that handle as well or better. More importantly, define what you NEED in handling? I mean, if we're talking about carving twisties then short of an STI or Focus RS wagon, maybe you're making the wrong choice with a wagon too. Fact is most cars (even SUVs) can "handle" better than most drivers (like the same is true for most bikes).

4. Why did you assume most SUVs are RWD? I would say most are either FWD or AWD these days and the distance between them and a "car" is often quite blurry (and small).

Edit-of course I just (as in last night) bought a new traditional RWD, 4x4, body on frame, live axle SUV not because of NEEDS, but because of WANTS. I wanted a fun, top off, all weather/all terrain option for groceries, picking up the/carting around the kids, plus some beach and trail driving.

[BRIO]

That post is a bunch of righteous indignation wrapped in your preferences sold as fact.

1. America is not like much of say Europe geographically. What serves them best doesn't necessarily serve us best.

2. If you're going argue NEEDS then perhaps you might recognize there are probably other ways than individually owned internal combustion engines to serve needs and once you admit that YOUR choices become as absurd and everyone else's.

3. Handling like a car? Is that damning with faint praise? Again, poor generalization. On AVERAGE that might be true, but most wagons weren't exactly the benchmark of handling and there are certainly plenty of SUVs (largely crossovers) that handle as well or better. More importantly, define what you NEED in handling? I mean, if we're talking about carving twisties then short of an STI or Focus RS wagon, maybe you're making the wrong choice with a wagon too. Fact is most cars (even SUVs) can "handle" better than most drivers (like the same is true for most bikes).

4. Why did you assume most SUVs are RWD? I would say most are either FWD or AWD these days and the distance between them and a "car" is often quite blurry (and small).

Edit-of course I just (as in last night) bought a new traditional RWD, 4x4, body on frame, live axle SUV not because of NEEDS, but because of WANTS. I wanted a fun, top off, all weather/all terrain option for groceries, picking up the/carting around the kids, plus some beach and trail driving.

1: The vast majority of Americas infrastructure is built with standard cars in mind just like in Europe. We have the Rockies they have the Alps but all in all very similar.

2: So you would posit that (for my family of 4) my 5 seat 30mpg 4 cylinder family car is just as absurd as a 11mpg Excursion for the same duty?

3 You claim that SUV's handle better than most drivers can handle? That is undiluted, emotional, none sense. In an emergency maneuver an "average driver" benefits much more from the added stability of a standard vehicle than an experienced one. Handling in this context is not about apex hunting. It's about preventing a spooked soccer mom from losing it on a dead straight highway and the like.

4 Don't remember where I read that. The sad thing is that it really doesn't matter. Most people won't utilize it anyway.


Buy what you want. It's a free country. My point is this: the intelligent consumer will recognize his/her needs and not be bullied by silly social stigma.

[Kev m]

You see, more bullshit, "the intelligent consumer" only agrees with you. 

1. Population density, availability of public transport, overall size and type of topography differ greatly from Europe.

2. If you live in population dense areas with access to public transport and your primary concern is impact to the environment yes. That said if your personal priorities, wealth, and needs or desires are different then it's no more absurd than owing a boat or say multiple motorcycles. Hell two of our 50 mpg bikes become the equivalent of 25 mpg when we ride them together. Do you ever ride with a friend on a separate bike? How about annual mileage, what's your annual total miles on that wagon, are you sure it's not double of triple the guy with that Expedition? Are you sure the difference in annual fuel costs means jack to his budget? There are a lot of factors you're assuming apply all based on your limited perspective.

3. Horseshit. If you think the average soccer mom has less of a chance of getting into an accident because of the handling systems in say an Outback vs. an Expedition you're nuts. If anything I bet her chances for survival go up in the latter based on sheer tonnage.

4. Well it would take data that I'm not sure exists market wise to be sure, but my impression is that MOST SUVs are either AQD/full-time 4wd or are crossovers based on a FWD platform. Even when a model is based on a RWD platform the majority of sales are usually the former.

The funny thing about this argument is that I'm a long time fan of Subaru having owned three and would happily own one again so it's got nothing to do with intelligence or social stigma why we now own two RWD based AWD and 4wd SUV's.

[Rough Edge racing]

The funny thing about this argument is that I'm a long time fan of Subaru having owned three and would happily own one again so it's for nothing to go with intelligence or social stigma why we now own two RWD based AWD and 4wd SUV's.

 The funny thing is I had a Subaru Forester and it broke down constantly....But that's not every Subaru...That's why it's difficult to recommend a vehicle.

[Kev m]

The funny thing is I had a Subaru Forester and it broke down constantly....But that's not every Subaru...That's why it's difficult to recommend a vehicle.

Man our Subarus were all rock solid. Our Forester was a 259k mile machines still running when it was sold that had very few repairs.

[blackcat]

I just bought a Subaru Outback 3.6R and really like it so far. The four cylinder with that rubber band transmission was a bit weird so I went with the six.

[Kev m]

I just bought a Subaru Outback 3.6R and really like it so far. The four cylinder with that rubber band transmission was a bit weird so I went with the six.

When we picked up the Grand Cherokee in 2012 we seriously considered that Outback.

In the end the decision for the Jeep was for a little more luxury, a little higher ride height (Jenn likes seeing over the traffic now, a big change from her Impreza wagon, Mini Cooper, and Turbo Beetle before the Jeep), and most of all a bit more luxury and capability.

For pretty darn similar money the Jeep has:

* An AWD but with a traditional low-range transfer case and multiple terrain drive system (useful for getting the family to and from the OBX house)/

* A higher tow capacity (5000# vs I think 3500# if I remember correctly) and self-leveling rear suspension that adjusts for tongue weight.

* Key fob actuated memory seats (helpful so that I don't bang my knees on the steering column/dash when I drive it), but also fob actuated mirror and radio settings.

* REAR heated seats

* And I think a better Sat NAV/Audio system (Garmin/U-connect), though that's highly subjective.

I think the Outback has a clear advantage in handling over this particular beast, though I wouldn't have said that about the earlier generation Jeep WJ Grand Cherokee.

[oldbike54]

You see, more bullshit, "the intelligent consumer" only agrees with you. 

1. Population density, availability of public transport, overall size and type of topography differ greatly from Europe.

2. If you live in population dense areas with access to public transport and your primary concern is impact to the environment yes. That said if your personal priorities, wealth, and needs or desires are different then it's no more absurd than owing a boat or say multiple motorcycles. Hell two of our 50 mpg bikes become the equivalent of 25 mpg when we ride them together. Do you ever ride with a friend on a separate bike? How about annual mileage, what's your annual total miles on that wagon, are you sure it's not double of triple the guy with that Expedition? Are you sure the difference in annual fuel costs means jack to his budget? There are a lot of factors you're assuming apply all based on your limited perspective.

3. Horseshit. If you think the average soccer mom has less of a chance of getting into an accident because of the handling systems in say an Outback vs. an Expedition you're nuts. If anything I bet her chances for survival go up in the latter based on sheer tonnage.

4. Well it would take data that I'm not sure exists market wise to be sure, but my impression is that MOST SUVs are either AQD/full-time 4wd or are crossovers based on a FWD platform. Even when a model is based on a RWD platform the majority of sales are usually the former.

The funny thing about this argument is that I'm a long time fan of Subaru having owned three and would happily own one again so it's got nothing to do with intelligence or social stigma why we now own two RWD based AWD and 4wd SUV's.

 Uh Kev , actually you are wrong , a vehicle's ability to avoid accidents plays a large role in safety . Large vehicles really don't fare all that well in overall safety , sorry dude .

  Dusty

[Rough Edge racing]

 I see so many SUV type all wheel drive vehicles in areas of the country where it rarely snows and they are not driven off road. I suppose all wheel drive has become the new standard.... But I take pride in driving used junk with a mechanical lever to engage the front axle so what do I know...
 

[blackcat]

When we picked up the Grand Cherokee in 2012 we seriously considered that Outback.

In the end the decision for the Jeep was for a little more luxury, a little higher ride height (Jenn likes seeing over the traffic now, a big change from her Impreza wagon, Mini Cooper, and Turbo Beetle before the Jeep), and most of all a bit more luxury and capability.

For pretty darn similar money the Jeep has:

* An AWD but with a traditional low-range transfer case and multiple terrain drive system (useful for getting the family to and from the OBX house)/

* A higher tow capacity (5000# vs I think 3500# if I remember correctly) and self-leveling rear suspension that adjusts for tongue weight.

* Key fob actuated memory seats (helpful so that I don't bang my knees on the steering column/dash when I drive it), but also fob actuated mirror and radio settings.

* REAR heated seats

* And I think a better Sat NAV/Audio system (Garmin/U-connect), though that's highly subjective.

I think the Outback has a clear advantage in handling over this particular beast, though I wouldn't have said that about the earlier generation Jeep WJ Grand Cherokee.

Jeeps seem to be way better than the last time I rode one back in the 1980's, but I never considered it because I really didn't want too big of a vehicle.  Just the two of us so the heated front seats were OK, the Nav is a joke but it works, though the salesman said he uses his google maps instead of the built in system. And I bought a used 13 with 20,000 miles and it was certified bumper to bumper for 100K with the extended warranty. I never buy those extended deals but saving the $10,000 difference between this and a new one, it seemed to be a reasonable cost.

[BRIO]

You see, more bullshit, "the intelligent consumer" only agrees with you. 

1. Population density, availability of public transport, overall size and type of topography differ greatly from Europe.

2. If you live in population dense areas with access to public transport and your primary concern is impact to the environment yes. That said if your personal priorities, wealth, and needs or desires are different then it's no more absurd than owing a boat or say multiple motorcycles. Hell two of our 50 mpg bikes become the equivalent of 25 mpg when we ride them together. Do you ever ride with a friend on a separate bike? How about annual mileage, what's your annual total miles on that wagon, are you sure it's not double of triple the guy with that Expedition? Are you sure the difference in annual fuel costs means jack to his budget? There are a lot of factors you're assuming apply all based on your limited perspective.

3. Horseshit. If you think the average soccer mom has less of a chance of getting into an accident because of the handling systems in say an Outback vs. an Expedition you're nuts. If anything I bet her chances for survival go up in the latter based on sheer tonnage.

4. Well it would take data that I'm not sure exists market wise to be sure, but my impression is that MOST SUVs are either AQD/full-time 4wd or are crossovers based on a FWD platform. Even when a model is based on a RWD platform the majority of sales are usually the former.

The funny thing about this argument is that I'm a long time fan of Subaru having owned three and would happily own one again so it's got nothing to do with intelligence or social stigma why we now own two RWD based AWD and 4wd SUV's.

1: Speeds are similar, the roads are similar. The distances may be greater but that doesn't mean a Yukon is the right tool. You talk about population density. I need to travel 100 miles. What is the best tool? A quality sedan that turns 2500rpm at 90mph while returning 30mpg? Or would it be a body on frame commercial vehicle with a trunk and leather seats with terrible mileage and dubious handling at speed?

2: We're talking family cars, not toys.

3: Rollover safety? Braking distance? Early upset in slalom maneuvers? Never heard of these issues? The only benefit to an SUV is mass. Of course this becomes an egotistical race of size as people try to get an edge on the next person and we end up with the Excursion. Again, the typical modern American approach to innovation is to use a bigger effing hammer. The more intelligent approach would be to prevent crashes in the first place and to rely on technology rather than differential mass to save the lives of ne plus ultra.

There are so many choices abroad that are not being offered to us due to inane social stigma surrounding station wagons in the USA. This is a shame because in reality they suit the need of the average family better.

[Tobit]

I didn't intend for this to become a pissing contest.  Let it go guys.  Not one size fits all and there is no perfect vehicle, despite what Melissa says.

 :Beating_A_Dead_Hors e_by_liviu 

[blackcat]

There are so many choices abroad that are not being offered to us due to inane social stigma surrounding station wagons in the USA. This is a shame because in reality they suit the need of the average family better.

I was waiting for the VW Alltrack but I'm not thinking that is going to happen too soon.

[oldbike54]

I didn't intend for this to become a pissing contest.  Let it go guys.  Not one size fits all and there is no perfect vehicle, despite what Melissa says.

 :Beating_A_Dead_Hors e_by_liviu

 Are ya new here ? Yeah , maybe toning it down a bit is in order .

  Dusty