Who likes the BMW X5, I need a suv and am considering getting it but the only thing i dont really like is the back styling of it. Also what other suvs do you all like for around 45,000? __________________ I have a '98 Blazer... I love it b/c it is spacey and not too big. I.e. excursion, expedition. I am partial to Chevy... so I would say a Tahoe... of a Lincoln Navigator (even though it is big... it is nice. same as expedition but a little more luxury)__________________ I am not to sure about pricing... but a new blazer will run you $30,000. Tahoe - $35-40,000... same for expedition and a little more for navigator.Or you can get a few years old and save a lot of money. __________________ No way. I can get a loaded Tahoe for 35K. Best deal on the market. I assume, though, Newbiee, judging by the state of your current ride, you're looking for something with a little more name cachet. The X5 is a piece of crap, one of my friends got one, and is ruing the day he got it. Underpowered, and the build quality sucks (so says he). I hear the Audi SU wagon is kinda nice, but it's still a station wagon, and the Volvo thing is just a cosmetic change. I'd go with an upscale M-Class, but those are made pretty poorly, too.Nope, if you're looking for a good SUV, there's nothing that tops good ol' American heavy metal.  __________________ how about a infiniti QX4...thos look pretty nice and seem to have nice specs, ao maybe the new acura suv, i havent heard much about that one though__________________ Quote:
QX4=Lexus minivan. Period, end of sentence. I test drove one when I was buying my car, and my mother's town and country was not only just as good, but better. Forget that piece of crap. The Acura looks interesting. Is it even out yet? If you're referring to the SLX (?) or the rebadged Trooper, I drove a Trooper in high school, and that thing is bullet-proof. It might not have the most amenities, and might not be the best vehicle to drive, and it doesn't even have a ton of power, but the build quality is impeccable, and the thing felt much more solid than the ML 55 my father recently bought and sold. I say, as a guy who's never driven a car and only SUV's, you should either go with a Land Cruiser, or go American. Even the British trucks are pieces of crap compared. If you're not in a rush, the next-gen Escalade will be nyce (I simply assume) or a Navigator, but that's probably out of your budget. __________________ Hmm, I really like the escalade but it seems to be awfully long...so i guess the ml 55amg sucks too is your dad bought and sold it. How about a range rover, those are nice and i guess i can take a little extra out for it. What would be your pick of a good name brand suv/sav to go for?__________________ Quote:
__________________ I wouldn't go for X5 if I'm looking for SUV, instead I'd rather choose Toyota Land Cruiser.__________________ Quote:
__________________ Quote:
Escalade: Good build quality, not that long (tahoe length, not suburban!); OnStar, a pretty good service; Cadillac service, which is a good thing; big engine, big power, big gas bill; not a great drive; built on basically a 1996 Tahoe platform. Navigator: mad rapper/baller credibility; again, big engine, stronger than the Escalade/Tahoe; very nice interior, definitely on par with the Japanese, and a bitchin' sound system (the Mach 3 system is very tight!); great looking, best outta the bunch, IMO; REALLY high point of view; gee-whizardry (adjustable pedals, etc.); it's HUGE Tahoe LT: Best value of full-size SUV's; big engine; not a "prestige" name-plate, if that matters; great build-quality; pretty good looking; lots of space. Range Rovers: Rapper/Baller cred; shaky build quality; middle size; high zoot hood plate; I think it's underpowered; lousy crash worthiness, I think; not a great driver compared to the tahoe or escalade. Land Cruiser: not a very good value, but it is build quite nicely; a little underpowered for my tastes, esp. with a car that heavy; not as much room as it's size would suggest; a little blandly designed for me. M-Class: way too small, why even bother having an SUV? ML 55 was alright, had pretty good power (duh) but not as much as you might expect. Steering felt nice and tight, but was offset by high center of gravity, so you could't really drive it hard. Road noise, and LCD screen would wash out in sunlight. Didn't like the seats. M-Class has had poor reliability record. X5: see M-class size problem; good 4 wheel system, but when are you going to use that (ignore if living in a snow-bound area); ugly bum; looks like a glorified station wagon; lousy ride (it'll loosen your teeth); poor handling for a small SUV; good build quality; horrendous value for what you get. RX300: the complete opposite of the X5 in ride: slush-o-riffic!; way underpowered, interior is ugly; like I said above, the most minivan-like of the SUV market. Grand Cherokee: Tranny problems in every one anyone I know that has ever bought one disqualified it when I was looking. Jeep just doesn't know how to make a car that's reliable, although I've heard it's gotten better recently. Still, I wouldn't consider it. Durango: My current and favorite ride. If it's size you're worried about, I find the Durango to be a very nice balance; HUGE engine, which means, again, lots of power, but LOTS of gas; great value: with the money you save, you can do a ton with it and make it much nicer than some of the others; Dodge truck products are much better than the car division, build-quality wise; decent handling, a little squidgy; best looking, right up there with the Nav. If you're looking to spend some money, you could always go with the Shelby Durango: exclusivity, mucho power, looks pretty good (tasteful) and handles better than the ML 55. That'd be my choice, although I don't really care for the paint scheme. Big recommendation for the Durango and the 2000-2001 Tahoes. [Edited by pennypinch on 10-16-2000 at 02:11 PM] __________________ I would either get the escalade or the navigator but does lincoln have a good repuatation. Also how much change will thie new generation escalade be from the old one? And how do you like the Toyota 4runners or Expeditions__________________ Wow, I am spending a lot of time on you today, aren't I?I believe the Escalade will change signficantly when (and if) the new ones are based on the 2000 Tahoe, just as the new Tahoe is a major improvement...make that progression...from the old style (i.e., Escalade) Tahoe. Basically, the car is a lot tighter, both in build quality, and in execution. A lot of the niggling stupid pain-in-the-ass problems were fixed. I've never liked the 4Runner. It's outrageously priced, and you get basically nothing for what you pay for. It was too small for me (and I'm only 6'2"), it doesn't have much trunk space, and it's engine is straight lousy. The seats sucked, and the sound system blew. Need I say more? I used to drive an Expo. You know it's the same as a Navigator, right? Well, I had a Triton V8 Eddie Bauer edition, and there were lots of nice things about it: -Leather was surprisingly nice for a Ford -Seats were awesome: more cushy than a Mercedes, and just as supportive. I could drive for hours in those things without getting "sore tailbone syndrome". -Engine pulled pretty good. Fuel economy like the Durango, though. -Sound system bumped (Mach 3) -Excellent Climate control Things I didn't like: -Being on eyelevel with trucks and buses. I'm not kidding. Like I said, I'm 6'2", and had to sort of vault up into the seat. -Stupid car tricks: who the hell needs adjustable pedals, or radio controls for the rear passengers, and so on and so on. Just way too many wacky gadgets, and I believe the Navigator is the same way (note: I haven't yet driven a Navigator, but I make my assumptions from the Expedition) -The thing is just huge. Bigger than a tahoe, although smaller than a suburban/Excursion. -Useless trip computer -Third row of seats is a pain in the ass to hide/store. -Not great to drive, although more nimble than you'd expect. Nah, if you're going to go that big, you might as well splurge for the Nav, it looks better. If you want to go smaller, I say forget the Pathfinder or the 4Runner, and go for the Tahoe or the Durango. I'd be surprised if the Pathfinder was much bigger than a Camry or Maxima inside. Other ones I haven't driven are Discoveries, Hyundai Santa Fe's, or Isuzu Amigo. P.S.: Don't even bother asking about the VehiCROSS. That thing is about the most useless vehicle that ever was. __________________ ok heres the new escalade..how do u think it looks?   its got a 345-horsepower V8 and 380 ft-lbs of torque at 4,000 RPM. HOw does that sound? __________________ Hmm, hadn't seen that before. I don't really mind the front, it's aggressive, but I'll take the Navigator or Durango look any day. I'll bet those lights are brighter than all hell, though!!__________________ Quote:
__________________ Dodge gives you a lot of bang for your buck, but it's build quality is the worst of the big 3, and it's behind by a lot. Somehow Jeep manages to put together good rides, but all three times I've been in different friend's Durangos, there's always a sqeek or squeel somewhere and broken pieces of plastic and such...__________________ Hmm, I'm surprised Hapoo hasn't been here yet and plasted this place with BMW wallpaper. Nobody get any ideas OK. Leave it for Hapoo. He needs to make himself useful somehow.__________________ Quote:
hate to burst your bubble, but almost every SUV is based on an extended cab truck. For instance: Durango: Dakota Expedition: F-250 Excursion: F-350 Tahoe: Silverado Sequoia: That big Toyota truck 4Runner: SR-5 pickup Colossus: I'd agree with that statement a few (re: 2) years ago. I think Chrysler products are reaping a lot of rewards from the DaimlerChrysler merger. I can (luckily?) say I have had not a thing wrong with my specimen, nor have any of my friends. I guess it's just who ya know. My mother gets a new minivan every 14 months or so, more because of the way she drives (i.e., like she's impersonating a blind person) than because of the build quality. Newbiee, colossus apparently disagrees, but I was very pleasantly surprised by the quality of the build of my Durango. __________________ Quote:
OHH believe me colossus I would jump at the chance but Apex disabled HTML  The best i can to in my sleep-deprived state:   __________________ Yeah, the Durangos I was in were from 2 years ago. Don't realy know about their revision history to say much about them.I hope Daimler is doing something there. Chrysler had some best looking monuments around - cars great to look at but would chance driving to work in them hehe. Hopefully they've changed that. I have yet to see a Chrysler minivan make 100K before tranny problems. Admitedly minivans get tortured, but my Taurus wagon pulled 167 painful miles with no problem so far. My 4 best friends all have some variant of the Chrysler minivans, all with different engines and driving styles (Asian parents, you know what I mean...) and they've all had tranny problems between 50-90K. Mavi forum |
Tuesday, June 5, 2007
Who likes the bmw....
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
0 comments:
Post a Comment