From: Mike Hunter on 30 Mar 2007 19:22
As any salesman and he will tell you the last question a customer asks
before signing on the dotted line is; "How much is my monthly payment?" ;)
"Dave" <daves1955(a)verizon.net> wrote in message
> Leythos wrote:
>> On Fri, 30 Mar 2007 12:28:32 +0000, Dave wrote:
>>> Larry wrote:
>>>> I, for one, do not agree with your final assessment, but I do find it
>>>> useful to point out misleading conclusions in manufacturer's claims.
>>>> This reminds me of the Camry/Accord/Fusion comparison in the Ford
>>>> commercial where the AWD Fusion is compared with a FWD Camry and FWD
>>>> Accord. I wonder what the results would have been if they had tested
>>>> a FWD Fusion.
>>> That may be true but I bet the price of the AWD Fusion is in the same
>>> ballpark as the FWD only Accord and Camry and therefore a valid
>> Price of a vehicle does not put it in the same category when testing
> But it DOES when buying a vehicle!
From: Mike Hunter on 30 Mar 2007 19:27
Among the vehicles you try, drive and get a total drive home price on a Ford
Edge, then decide, WBMA
"Leythos" <Void(a)nowhere.lan> wrote in message
> I've been trying to find a 4x4 or AWD vehicle that has some cargo capacity
> (an SUV type, not a truck), gets about 20 City, has 250+HP, and handles
> curves real well - under $40K.
From: Mike Hunter on 30 Mar 2007 19:30
One is always best served by first driving all those that they believe will
suit their needs, then get a total drive home price for each and buy the one
that best suits their budget.
"Ed White" <ce.white3(a)gmail.com> wrote in message
> On Mar 30, 10:58 am, Leythos <V...(a)nowhere.lan> wrote:
>> I've been trying to find a 4x4 or AWD vehicle that has some cargo
>> (an SUV type, not a truck), gets about 20 City, has 250+HP, and handles
>> curves real well - under $40K.
> Honda Ridgline? Not much of a truck, but might be what you need. Or
> if by SUV, you mean something with an encloded rear compartment, how
> about a four cylinder RAV4 or CRV or Escape?
From: jcr on 30 Mar 2007 21:56
C. E. White wrote:
> I see Toyota has another new Tundra ad on TV. Like the others it is
> deceptive, if not actually factually incorrect. They line up all the major
> full size pick-ups and do a side by side 0 to 60 to 0 run. They tell you
> which Tundra they are running (5.7L engine), but don't provide details of
> the other trucks (hopefully they all have the best 0-60 set-up). The Tundra
> clearly wins. This is fine. Irrelevant, but fine - people who actually NEED
> trucks don't do a lot of WOT 0-60 runs. I have no problem with a clear
> demonstration of the Tundra's superior acceleration since I don't really do
> much drag racing with my pick-up. What bugs me was the announcers final
> statement - something to the effect that it stopped 30 feet shorter than the
> competition. While this is true when you consider the distance from the
> start of the 0 to 60 to 0 run, the way the line was phrased could be
> interpreted to mean that the Tundra's stopping distance from 60 was 30 feet
> shorter than the competitions. It wasn't. Most of the 30 feet was gained
> during the acceleration phase. So while the commercial was factually correct
> it was carefully worded so as to encourage people to believe something that
> was not actually demonstrated. In their 2007 Full Size Pick-up Road
> Comparison Test, Edmunds.com recorded the 5.7 Double Cab Tundras stopping
> distance from 60 as 131 feet. A similar Silverado managed 139 feet. A
> similar Titan stopped from 60 in 127 feet. In the recent Car and Driver 2007
> pick-up comparison test, the 70-0 results were F150 - 200 feet, Dodge 1500 -
> 196 feet, Tundra - 197 feet, Nissan Titian 200 feet, Silverado - 187 feet.
> So despite the attempt to make it seem as if the Tundra had exceptional
> brakes, they are in fact typical of the class. But if you want to drag race
> your Tundra, it is first rate. Too bad it is a fourth rate work truck.
I'd be very surprised if Toyota's "fastest" truck would out-accelerate
the V-10 engines that Ford and Dodge produce.
From: jcr on 30 Mar 2007 21:59
> On Thu, 29 Mar 2007 10:36:02 -0700, a rock fell the sky, hitting Larry on
> the head, and inspiring the following:
>> I, for one, do not agree with your final assessment, but I do find it
>> useful to point out misleading conclusions in manufacturer's claims.
>> This reminds me of the Camry/Accord/Fusion comparison in the Ford
>> commercial where the AWD Fusion is compared with a FWD Camry and FWD
>> Accord. I wonder what the results would have been if they had tested a
>> FWD Fusion.
> Exactly. It is kind of like Microsoft showing how secure Windows 2003 is
> compared to Linux. They compare Win2003 to some older version of Red Hat,
> or worse, when they compare the TCO of upgrading to Linux from windows
> and include training costs vs. simply staying with Windows.
> As an aside, I decided to drag race - well, sort of - my wife yesterday.
> She was in her '05 Vue and I in my '06 Avalanche.
> Her 240 HP V6 completely outran my 310 HP V8. Of course, her car weighs
> 3,400 lbs. compared to my truck at almost 6,000 lbs.
And the V-6 engine in the Saturn Vue is made by Honda.