|
|
|
Comment |
Sorted by
Date Written |
Re: Big is relative (Reply to this comment)
by mkaresh,  in Cars & Motorsports
My earlier comment was a bit rushed.
I resent being compared to Tony Swan, or anyone else who used to write for Motor Trend in the 1980s and 1990s.
As for my anti-SUV bias, I not biased against SUVs per se, only biased against their use by people who do no heavy towing/cargo carrying.
Every day when I take my daughter to school I contend with a congested parking lot chock full of full-size SUVs. I have a hard time maneuvering my compact Mazda through this parking lot. I cannot imagine navigating it in a Navigator. You cannot see a child--or my car--out of the back of these large SUVs. Luckily there has been no major accident--yet.
That said, for people who tow big stuff often, I agree there really is no substitute.
As for depreciation, in my Saab reviews I usually tell people that the only reasonable way to buy a Saab is used or through one of their heavily subsidized leases. (A used 9-5 Aero wagon can be an especially good buy.) Purchase a new one the old fashioned way and you suffer big time.
|
Jan 09 '05
3:46 pm PST
|
|
Re: Big is relative (Reply to this comment)
by mkaresh, in Cars & Motorsports
At the time I was comparing the 4Runner not to my favorite sort of car but to the Toyota Highlander I had just finished test driving. The two are similar in size but much different in feel. In the case of the 4Runner the massive feel I describe has as much to do with throttle response as handling. If simply feels like a substantial bit of machinery, which is not necessarily a negative.
At the same time, I have driven other similarly-sized conventional SUVs that felt more nimble. The Jeep Grand Cherokee comes to mind.
|
Jan 09 '05
12:08 pm PST
|
|
Big is relative (Reply to this comment)
by brucec32
I disagree that the 4runner has a massive feel. I drove it and a Tacoma today and both provided a surprisingly smooth ride and decent handling in a package that is very manageable. Size is relative. It's massive compared to a 2800 lb car. But go drive a Dodge Ram or any full size SUV if you want to feel "massive" and ponderous.
You need to remember to avoid the temptation to judge all vehicles by the standards of what appears to be your favorite type (small nimble lightweight cars). Many people also have multiple vehicles and can use the sports sedan when they want that, and the SUV when they are headed to the mall, where the higher vantage point helps look over rows of cars to pick lanes better, the cargo area aids in getting things home, etc. It's also hard to tow the boat to the lake in a Camry. You're not the only knowledgeable car enthusiast with a strong anti-suv bias (Tony Snow at Car and Driver comes to mind), but I would be that most families with an SUV in the garage also have a sedan, sports car, or other type vehicle.
I would also note that the 2wd w/ sports pkg has some suspension improvements that aid in handling, as well as less weight. With so many tepid sedans out there I don't blame people for choosing this size SUV. I've done exhaustive research and they all fail in at least one category that is a must have (price, good looks, safety, size, comfort, performance, good resale value and cost of ownership).
That last category is also a reason to try a 4runner. RESALE VALUE. My Saab 9-3 SS lost more value in a year than a 4runner has since 2001. And cars that hold their value well usually cost a lot.
|
Jan 08 '05
9:33 pm PST
|
|
Re: What about a comparison to the Lexus GX 470? (Reply to this comment)
by mkaresh, in Cars & Motorsports
I wouldn't expect the Lexus to perform much differently. The largest differences are likely aesthetic.
Personally, I'm not such what to make of a conventional SUV styled to look "fancy," as Lexus SUVs are to an even larger extent than those from Cadillac and Lincoln, especially in the popular combinatin of white metallic paint and gold trim. I imagine you can also buy a true diver's watch in gold with diamonds, but that doesn't compute for me, either.
I'm not saying luxury SUVs in general don't make sense. The Range Rover looks both luxurious and as if it is intended for off-road use. Just the prissy ones.
|
Jun 02 '04
10:01 am PDT
|
|
What about a comparison to the Lexus GX 470? (Reply to this comment)
by sabrinasolomon
I test drove the 4Runner and liked it, but I'm used to the luxuries of a BMW. The Lexus GX 470 seems like the logical choice in this case. I'm anxious to know your thoughts on the Lexus. Any reason you haven't reviewed it? It would be a welcome review, and a logical choice for a comparison to other SUVs (especially the 4Runner).
|
Jun 01 '04
10:19 pm PDT
|
|
Re: Hi..I didn't rate this because (Reply to this comment)
by mkaresh, in Cars & Motorsports
Thanks for the info on the third row. Interesting.
Aesthetics are of course subjective. I call them like I see them.
As for towing, I should start including maximum towing in my reviews, especially those of SUVs.
|
Apr 08 '04
5:15 am PDT
|
|
Hi..I didn't rate this because (Reply to this comment)
by jo.com
I just in general have a hard time rating test drives unless someone has owned the car or one very similar.
One error and one addition. I have owned this vehicle since December so perhaps can add some clarification. First the 3rd row is not available everywhere. For example the largest dealer in MA has no 3rd row 4Runners. I specifically asked about this and was told that the availability was regional. When I reviewed this SUV I found out that information as well.
The SUV is very pretty. Even from a woman's point of view. We also have a truck which isn't very pretty. I can't even compare them- apples and oranges.
Finally one major reason to purchase this unlike the Kia and most others you mention and one reason many do (and the reason we did) is because it is one of the few SUVs that tow 7000 pounds. jo
|
Apr 07 '04
3:15 pm PDT
|
|
|
|
