Unicorn Hunting: Comfy wagon/SUV with great mileage

  • Thread starter Thread starter Clay
  • Start date Start date
C

Clay

Greetings! I'm shopping for a car that may not exist. My requirements
list isn't long, but it's hard to find them on the same car.

1) Absurdly comfortable front seats. I'm 6'2" and get back pain
whenever I drive any of my current cars for more than 30-60 minutes. I
"only" weigh 190, but have long legs for someone by height.

2) Good winter traction. We live in rural New England and have a 400-
foot sloped gravel driveway. 4WD isn't a requirement (our FWD Passat
is adequate for example), but better ground clearance would be great
(our current cars frequently scrape on the dirt roads around here --
including one recent event that broke TWO catalytic converters).

3) Great gas mileage. As you can tell from the fact that one of our
cars runs on waste vegetable oil (see below), we care a lot about
reducing emissions. This is actually more important, to us, than fuel
savings. That is, we don't mind paying $5,000 extra for a car that
will save us only $3,000 in gas costs over the life of the vehicle.

3a) Manual transmission. I have never owned an automatic and I don't
like them. They have worse mileage and I don't enjoy them as much (I
also like how manuals force me to pay attention to my driving --
neither my wife nor I have ever had an accident in over 30 combined
years driving 5-speeds).

I've heard that the Prius has surprisingly good leg-room, but all our
driving is rural -- so a hybrid doesn't seem like the right
technology. I also hate automatics.

I have a friend with a 5-cylinder Volvo wagon -- she says she gets 35
MPG highway. I haven't tried driving it, but perhaps this is the best
combo of the above choices.

I'm also looking at SUV options (Ford? Honda?), because I notice my
back hurts a lot less in vehicles (like our pickup truck) with an
'upright' seating position.

I sat in my stepmother's Subara Forester for a few minutes and I'm
pretty sure the front seat is too cramped. Same with the few minutes I
spent in a Toyota Highlander Hybrid.

For reference, these are our current/recent cars, and what we liked
and didn't like:

a) 1987 Nissan Sentra (2-door). My first car, but I soon realized that
driving it was like jabbing an ice pick in my lower back. My father-in-
law was a mechanic so we ripped out the front seat and drilled some
more holes in the seat frame so that it could go farther back (to the
point that no one could fit in the back seat). This was a great
solution, but not one that makes sense for me any more.

b) 1996 VW Golf. Another great car. Suprisingly comfortable front
seats.

c) 1999 Nissan Frontier Pickup Truck. Great reliable pickup truck, but
somewhat cramped seating, and not a good all-around vehicle for a 3-
person family.

d) 1999 VW Jetta Diesel, with a "GreaseCar" kit to run on waste
vegetable oil. Starting to show it's age -- less reliable than the
Japanese cars I've owned. Horrible winter traction, and less
comfortable than the Golf.

e) 2000 VW Passat 6-cylinder. The weight helps gives this car much
better snow traction than the Jetta, but it's mileage is poor, and the
front seat is the LEAST comfortable of any car I've ever owned. Alas,
I didn't notice this in the 20-minute test drive.

I would love feedback from other people like me, who've had trouble
finding a comfortable car. I really wish the dealers would let me test-
drive a car for a day (or a week) so I could truly assess whether the
car was suitable for long drives.

Thanks in advance for any help!

Clay
 
Clay said:
Greetings! I'm shopping for a car that may not exist. My requirements
list isn't long, but it's hard to find them on the same car.

1) Absurdly comfortable front seats. I'm 6'2" and get back pain
whenever I drive any of my current cars for more than 30-60 minutes. I
"only" weigh 190, but have long legs for someone by height.

2) Good winter traction. We live in rural New England and have a 400-
foot sloped gravel driveway. 4WD isn't a requirement (our FWD Passat
is adequate for example), but better ground clearance would be great
(our current cars frequently scrape on the dirt roads around here --
including one recent event that broke TWO catalytic converters).

3) Great gas mileage. As you can tell from the fact that one of our
cars runs on waste vegetable oil (see below), we care a lot about
reducing emissions. This is actually more important, to us, than fuel
savings. That is, we don't mind paying $5,000 extra for a car that
will save us only $3,000 in gas costs over the life of the vehicle.

3a) Manual transmission. I have never owned an automatic and I don't
like them. They have worse mileage and I don't enjoy them as much (I
also like how manuals force me to pay attention to my driving --
neither my wife nor I have ever had an accident in over 30 combined
years driving 5-speeds).

I've heard that the Prius has surprisingly good leg-room, but all our
driving is rural -- so a hybrid doesn't seem like the right
technology. I also hate automatics.

I have a friend with a 5-cylinder Volvo wagon -- she says she gets 35
MPG highway. I haven't tried driving it, but perhaps this is the best
combo of the above choices.

I'm also looking at SUV options (Ford? Honda?), because I notice my
back hurts a lot less in vehicles (like our pickup truck) with an
'upright' seating position.

I sat in my stepmother's Subara Forester for a few minutes and I'm
pretty sure the front seat is too cramped. Same with the few minutes I
spent in a Toyota Highlander Hybrid.

For reference, these are our current/recent cars, and what we liked
and didn't like:

a) 1987 Nissan Sentra (2-door). My first car, but I soon realized that
driving it was like jabbing an ice pick in my lower back. My father-in-
law was a mechanic so we ripped out the front seat and drilled some
more holes in the seat frame so that it could go farther back (to the
point that no one could fit in the back seat). This was a great
solution, but not one that makes sense for me any more.

b) 1996 VW Golf. Another great car. Suprisingly comfortable front
seats.

c) 1999 Nissan Frontier Pickup Truck. Great reliable pickup truck, but
somewhat cramped seating, and not a good all-around vehicle for a 3-
person family.

d) 1999 VW Jetta Diesel, with a "GreaseCar" kit to run on waste
vegetable oil. Starting to show it's age -- less reliable than the
Japanese cars I've owned. Horrible winter traction, and less
comfortable than the Golf.

e) 2000 VW Passat 6-cylinder. The weight helps gives this car much
better snow traction than the Jetta, but it's mileage is poor, and the
front seat is the LEAST comfortable of any car I've ever owned. Alas,
I didn't notice this in the 20-minute test drive.

I would love feedback from other people like me, who've had trouble
finding a comfortable car. I really wish the dealers would let me test-
drive a car for a day (or a week) so I could truly assess whether the
car was suitable for long drives.

Thanks in advance for any help!

Clay
Click to expand...


This reference lists every vehicle made for 2008 MY:
http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/FEG2008.pdf

And http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/FEG2007.pdf for the 2007 MY.

They group vehicles by type and list the engine, transmission, and mileage.

You can do a comprehensive search and narrow your search easily.

I drove a Saturn Vue (available with 2WD and 4-cyl) and liked it. The
Ford Escape and Tribute might meet your needs. I would also look at the
Hyundai, Suzuki, MiniCooper, Fonda Fit, Ford Edge, Pontiac Vibe. As far
as what is comfortable for you, sorry, but I have a different back than you.

You might or might not be surprised how big the Fit and Mini Cooper are.

Jeff
 
Clay said:
Greetings! I'm shopping for a car that may not exist. My requirements
list isn't long, but it's hard to find them on the same car.

1) Absurdly comfortable front seats. I'm 6'2" and get back pain
whenever I drive any of my current cars for more than 30-60 minutes. I
"only" weigh 190, but have long legs for someone by height.

2) Good winter traction. We live in rural New England and have a 400-
foot sloped gravel driveway. 4WD isn't a requirement (our FWD Passat
is adequate for example), but better ground clearance would be great
(our current cars frequently scrape on the dirt roads around here --
including one recent event that broke TWO catalytic converters).

3) Great gas mileage. As you can tell from the fact that one of our
cars runs on waste vegetable oil (see below), we care a lot about
reducing emissions. This is actually more important, to us, than fuel
savings. That is, we don't mind paying $5,000 extra for a car that
will save us only $3,000 in gas costs over the life of the vehicle.

3a) Manual transmission. I have never owned an automatic and I don't
like them. They have worse mileage and I don't enjoy them as much (I
also like how manuals force me to pay attention to my driving --
neither my wife nor I have ever had an accident in over 30 combined
years driving 5-speeds).

I've heard that the Prius has surprisingly good leg-room, but all our
driving is rural -- so a hybrid doesn't seem like the right
technology. I also hate automatics.
Click to expand...
The Prius would do very well in the economy department and (depending on how
you and the seats fit together) it would probably handle your height. The
ground clearance and traction requirements are deal breakers, though. All
Prius models have relatively little ground clearance - around five inches -
and too much vulnerable stuff under the car. The hatchback models have a
tactic of shutting down power to the wheels once slippage starts and is only
overridden (partially, at that) with full throttle. The hybrid system
doesn't have an actual automatic transmission so much as a power delivery
system. I am also partial to manual trannies and occasionally really
frustrated with automatics but I really like the way the hybrid power train
works. Still - no way where you drive.

The Ford Escape Hybrid may overcome the ground clearance problem, but I've
heard bad things (maybe outdated) about the usable traction. That's
something somebody with direct experience would know be able to tell you
about.

Mike
 
Clay said:
Greetings! I'm shopping for a car that may not exist. My requirements
list isn't long, but it's hard to find them on the same car.

1) Absurdly comfortable front seats. I'm 6'2" and get back pain
whenever I drive any of my current cars for more than 30-60 minutes. I
"only" weigh 190, but have long legs for someone by height.

2) Good winter traction. We live in rural New England and have a 400-
foot sloped gravel driveway. 4WD isn't a requirement (our FWD Passat
is adequate for example), but better ground clearance would be great
(our current cars frequently scrape on the dirt roads around here --
including one recent event that broke TWO catalytic converters).

3) Great gas mileage. As you can tell from the fact that one of our
cars runs on waste vegetable oil (see below), we care a lot about
reducing emissions. This is actually more important, to us, than fuel
savings. That is, we don't mind paying $5,000 extra for a car that
will save us only $3,000 in gas costs over the life of the vehicle.

3a) Manual transmission. I have never owned an automatic and I don't
like them. They have worse mileage and I don't enjoy them as much (I
also like how manuals force me to pay attention to my driving --
neither my wife nor I have ever had an accident in over 30 combined
years driving 5-speeds).

I've heard that the Prius has surprisingly good leg-room, but all our
driving is rural -- so a hybrid doesn't seem like the right
technology. I also hate automatics.

I have a friend with a 5-cylinder Volvo wagon -- she says she gets 35
MPG highway. I haven't tried driving it, but perhaps this is the best
combo of the above choices.

I'm also looking at SUV options (Ford? Honda?), because I notice my
back hurts a lot less in vehicles (like our pickup truck) with an
'upright' seating position.

I sat in my stepmother's Subara Forester for a few minutes and I'm
pretty sure the front seat is too cramped. Same with the few minutes I
spent in a Toyota Highlander Hybrid.

For reference, these are our current/recent cars, and what we liked
and didn't like:

a) 1987 Nissan Sentra (2-door). My first car, but I soon realized that
driving it was like jabbing an ice pick in my lower back. My father-in-
law was a mechanic so we ripped out the front seat and drilled some
more holes in the seat frame so that it could go farther back (to the
point that no one could fit in the back seat). This was a great
solution, but not one that makes sense for me any more.

b) 1996 VW Golf. Another great car. Suprisingly comfortable front
seats.

c) 1999 Nissan Frontier Pickup Truck. Great reliable pickup truck, but
somewhat cramped seating, and not a good all-around vehicle for a 3-
person family.

d) 1999 VW Jetta Diesel, with a "GreaseCar" kit to run on waste
vegetable oil. Starting to show it's age -- less reliable than the
Japanese cars I've owned. Horrible winter traction, and less
comfortable than the Golf.

e) 2000 VW Passat 6-cylinder. The weight helps gives this car much
better snow traction than the Jetta, but it's mileage is poor, and the
front seat is the LEAST comfortable of any car I've ever owned. Alas,
I didn't notice this in the 20-minute test drive.

I would love feedback from other people like me, who've had trouble
finding a comfortable car. I really wish the dealers would let me test-
drive a car for a day (or a week) so I could truly assess whether the
car was suitable for long drives.

Thanks in advance for any help!

Clay
Click to expand...

Hmmm. performance and reliability are not on your list of desired traits?
Lots of leg room tends to come with larger vehicles, which tend to be less
fuel efficient and environmentally friendly than a smaller vehicle.

Look at the Scion xB, which has a surprising amount of interior room, good
fuel economy, FWD, and available manual transmission. Check out the Ford
Escape, Toyota Rav4, Honda CRV & Element, and new Highlander.
 
Clay said:
I've heard that the Prius has surprisingly good leg-room, but all our
driving is rural -- so a hybrid doesn't seem like the right
technology. I also hate automatics.
Click to expand...

Why does rural driving rule out a hybrid?

As for the transmission....if you're truly interested in using less fuel
and reducing emissions, you should take a close look at the Prius.
True, you can't shift it yourself--but if you look very closely at the
technology, you'll be amazed at what Toyota has done. It doesn't have a
conventional transmission, or even a conventional belt-driven CVT, at
all. The geniuses at Toyota figured out how to do a hybrid drivetrain,
and determined how the power should be managed, and the result is
amazing.

Like it or not, the Toyota method is the wave of the future for
passenger cars.
 
Alas, much as we love our Prius for its consistent 50 MPG, it has the LEAST
comfortable and least adjustable seats of any car I've ever ridden in since
the elementary school bus.

Sorry it doesn't exist, but what you need (and I'd buy one too) is a 40 MPG
Volvo V70 Hybrid.
 
I would suggest looking a Toyota RAV4. You probably will want the
higher trim level. The base model seats are mediocre at best, but the
car has decent leg room. There is a 4 cylinder manual transmission
model available. My SO has the 4 cylinder automatic version and it has
adequate power and she gets decent gas mileage (mid to high 20's in
mixed driving). I am 6'3" and much heavier than you. I found the front
seats tolerable, but not great. I think the higher trim level seats
are better. The Ford Escape is another potential choice. My Sister has
an older Escape (2001). It has been nearly flawless. Her Escape has
the better interior and the seats are much better than the base seats
in the RAV4, but her V6 Escape doesn't get nearly as good gas mileage
as the 4 cylinder RAV4. Ford does sell a 4 cylinder manual Escape, but
I've never driven one of those. They also offer a hybrid Escape, but
it is not a manual.

Ed
 
There's only one choice for you- try a Subaru Outback. My 04 got 29
mpg fully loaded driving cross country and the AWD will handle
anything you would attempt in a stock vehicle and be 100% reliable for
a long time. Try it. The 4 cyl is plenty powerful and a manual is
available.
 
Hybrids are for wimps. I hate getting stuck behind those putt putt
priuse

Alas, much as we love our Prius for its consistent 50 MPG, it has the LEAST
comfortable and least adjustable seats of any car I've ever ridden in since
the elementary school bus.

Sorry it doesn't exist, but what you need (and I'd buy one too) is a 40 MPG
Volvo V70 Hybrid.
Click to expand...
 
Greetings! I'm shopping for a car that may not exist. My requirements
list isn't long, but it's hard to find them on the same car.

1) Absurdly comfortable front seats. I'm 6'2" and get back pain
whenever I drive any of my current cars for more than 30-60 minutes. I
"only" weigh 190, but have long legs for someone by height.
Click to expand...

A Volvo XC90 will be roomy, have good winter traction and get passable
milage. A Subaru Outback will be somewhat smaller, get marginally
better milage, have a manual gearbox and be passably roomy.

Unfortunately the combination of large roomy vehicle with a manual
transmission, all wheel drive that gets very high milage does not
exist.
2) Good winter traction. We live in rural New England and have a 400-
foot sloped gravel driveway. 4WD isn't a requirement (our FWD Passat
is adequate for example), but better ground clearance would be great
(our current cars frequently scrape on the dirt roads around here --
including one recent event that broke TWO catalytic converters).
Click to expand...

I doubt that you will find a 4WD passenger vehicle. More likely will
be AWD.
3) Great gas mileage. As you can tell from the fact that one of our
cars runs on waste vegetable oil (see below), we care a lot about
reducing emissions. This is actually more important, to us, than fuel
savings. That is, we don't mind paying $5,000 extra for a car that
will save us only $3,000 in gas costs over the life of the vehicle.
Click to expand...

AWD vehicles typically do not get great milage.
3a) Manual transmission. I have never owned an automatic and I don't
like them. They have worse mileage and I don't enjoy them as much (I
also like how manuals force me to pay attention to my driving --
neither my wife nor I have ever had an accident in over 30 combined
years driving 5-speeds).
Click to expand...

Very few passenger vehicles have manual transmissions. The only one I
can think of that couples a manual gearbox and AWD is the Subaru
Outback. It was quite comfortable when I drove one and I'm 6'.
I've heard that the Prius has surprisingly good leg-room, but all our
driving is rural -- so a hybrid doesn't seem like the right
technology. I also hate automatics.

I have a friend with a 5-cylinder Volvo wagon -- she says she gets 35
MPG highway. I haven't tried driving it, but perhaps this is the best
combo of the above choices.
Click to expand...

If it is an AWD vehicle I doubt that it gets 35mpg. Indeed the
standard front wheel drive non-turbo car would likely get 28 to 30 mpg
on the highway.

Given that you apparently have back problems that should be the first
criteria for you. Develop a list of cars that fit your frame and can
accomodate a sore back. Beyond providing a list of cars with roomy
front seating tt is literally impossible for someone on the internet
to guess which car will fit you properly.
 
Elmo said:
It's not the tool, it's the operator.
Click to expand...

I, too, take it nice and gently. I like to save gas and not wear out my
equipment. The only difference is that I am not rushing to stop at the
next red light, rather, I sail through it when it is green.

Jeff
 
Clay said:
Greetings! I'm shopping for a car that may not exist. My requirements
list isn't long, but it's hard to find them on the same car.
Click to expand...

Good news! You've just described my '82 Chevy Cavalier wagon. If you can
find one still running, it will only set you back about $75!
1) Absurdly comfortable front seats. I'm 6'2" and get back pain
whenever I drive any of my current cars for more than 30-60 minutes. I
"only" weigh 190, but have long legs for someone by height.
Click to expand...

Check. I'm taller than you. It was very comfortable for me. We once had 5
adults in it for a two-hour trip and no one complained (the three in the
back were neither fat nor tall, though).
2) Good winter traction. We live in rural New England and have a 400-
foot sloped gravel driveway. 4WD isn't a requirement (our FWD Passat
is adequate for example), but better ground clearance would be great
(our current cars frequently scrape on the dirt roads around here --
including one recent event that broke TWO catalytic converters).
Click to expand...

Check. We drove it north from Massachusetts, once, to Maine in a winter
Nor'Easter. We did not see any other cars at all on I-95 from Brunswick to
Gardiner.
3) Great gas mileage. As you can tell from the fact that one of our
cars runs on waste vegetable oil (see below), we care a lot about
reducing emissions. This is actually more important, to us, than fuel
savings. That is, we don't mind paying $5,000 extra for a car that
will save us only $3,000 in gas costs over the life of the vehicle.
Click to expand...

Check. 40+mpg whenever on the highway. I never computed the in-town
numbers but they must have been close to or, more likely, over 30.
3a) Manual transmission. I have never owned an automatic and I don't
like them. They have worse mileage and I don't enjoy them as much (I
also like how manuals force me to pay attention to my driving --
neither my wife nor I have ever had an accident in over 30 combined
years driving 5-speeds).
Click to expand...

It was only a 4-speed but still managed very respectable fuel economy. The
clutch was still going strong at 80K miles.

However, it was rather underpowered. The carburetted 1.8L engine only
developed 68 hp. I was satisfied with it but many people would not tolerate
its power-to-weight ratio, which only got worse as you added people. And
once the engine started to age, you knew the power was going to fall off
some. I'll bet it didn't develop 60hp by the time I sold it (after 10
mostly satisfactory years - it did have its little peculiarities and
problems along the way - for $250). It still got great fuel economy,
though.

[snip]
I would love feedback from other people like me, who've had trouble
finding a comfortable car. I really wish the dealers would let me test-
drive a car for a day (or a week) so I could truly assess whether the
car was suitable for long drives.

Thanks in advance for any help!

Clay
Click to expand...

You want an updated '82 Cavalier or an updated mid-90's Corolla wagon. Both
discontinued. :-( The Accord and Camry wagons are a thing of the past,
too.

I now drive an '00 stick Rav4. It mostly meets the "compact wagon"
criteria, is very comfy for me to drive and you can cram a surprising amount
of crap into it (the rear seats fold up and can even be removed for a little
extra room). It's also very short, has a good turning radius and excellent
visibility, so it's really easy to park. Ours is FWD and it does well in
snow on all-season tires. The only drawback is that at 24/30mpg, it doesn't
quite have the fuel economy that I'd like but we don't drive very much, so
it matters less. I bought it used, when fuel prices were low, so it wasn't
expensive.

If I was going to replace it, I'd look at a newer Rav4 but not later than an
'05. The '06's (and '07's and '08's) are significantly bigger and heavier.
The EPA numbers look just about the same but, IMHO, weight counts for a lot
and I'll bet I wouldn't get the same fuel economy with a new one as with the
smaller, older ones. Ed White thinks the new ones are available with a
stick (see his note) but I do not believe this is the case. In any event,
auto Toyotas do pretty well for fuel economy when compared to the stick
versions.

One of the things that affects fuel economy is ground clearance and any of
those tall-profile, high-clearance vehicles aren't going to do really well
at speed on the highway. My '00 can hit 31mpg if there's no unfavorable
wind and I keep right at 60mph but falls off noticeably as I go faster.
Auto Ravs might do slightly better on the highway as the autos seem to be
geared taller.


You should look at the Pontiac Vibe/Toyota Matrix. Friends have a stick
Vibe and they routinely get 36mpg on the highway. Not bad. They have lots
of room inside. I don't know how they do on snow; you could ask around (buy
really good snows, instead of all-seasons). There were AWD versions for a
while but that robs fuel and I think they were discontinued. I think the
Vibe is better looking than the Matrix but tastes differ. I considered a
Vibe a few years ago but decided to save the up-front money and get the used
Rav4 for much less.
 
Greetings! I'm shopping for a car that may not exist. My requirements
list isn't long, but it's hard to find them on the same car.

1) Absurdly comfortable front seats. I'm 6'2" and get back pain
whenever I drive any of my current cars for more than 30-60 minutes. I
"only" weigh 190, but have long legs for someone by height.

2) Good winter traction. We live in rural New England and have a 400-
foot sloped gravel driveway. 4WD isn't a requirement (our FWD Passat
is adequate for example), but better ground clearance would be great
(our current cars frequently scrape on the dirt roads around here --
including one recent event that broke TWO catalytic converters).

3) Great gas mileage. As you can tell from the fact that one of our
cars runs on waste vegetable oil (see below), we care a lot about
reducing emissions. This is actually more important, to us, than fuel
savings. That is, we don't mind paying $5,000 extra for a car that
will save us only $3,000 in gas costs over the life of the vehicle.

3a) Manual transmission. I have never owned an automatic and I don't
like them. They have worse mileage and I don't enjoy them as much (I
also like how manuals force me to pay attention to my driving --
neither my wife nor I have ever had an accident in over 30 combined
years driving 5-speeds).

I've heard that the Prius has surprisingly good leg-room, but all our
driving is rural -- so a hybrid doesn't seem like the right
technology. I also hate automatics.

I have a friend with a 5-cylinder Volvo wagon -- she says she gets 35
MPG highway. I haven't tried driving it, but perhaps this is the best
combo of the above choices.

I'm also looking at SUV options (Ford? Honda?), because I notice my
back hurts a lot less in vehicles (like our pickup truck) with an
'upright' seating position.

I sat in my stepmother's Subara Forester for a few minutes and I'm
pretty sure the front seat is too cramped. Same with the few minutes I
spent in a Toyota Highlander Hybrid.

For reference, these are our current/recent cars, and what we liked
and didn't like:

a) 1987 Nissan Sentra (2-door). My first car, but I soon realized that
driving it was like jabbing an ice pick in my lower back. My father-in-
law was a mechanic so we ripped out the front seat and drilled some
more holes in the seat frame so that it could go farther back (to the
point that no one could fit in the back seat). This was a great
solution, but not one that makes sense for me any more.

b) 1996 VW Golf. Another great car. Suprisingly comfortable front
seats.

c) 1999 Nissan Frontier Pickup Truck. Great reliable pickup truck, but
somewhat cramped seating, and not a good all-around vehicle for a 3-
person family.

d) 1999 VW Jetta Diesel, with a "GreaseCar" kit to run on waste
vegetable oil. Starting to show it's age -- less reliable than the
Japanese cars I've owned. Horrible winter traction, and less
comfortable than the Golf.

e) 2000 VW Passat 6-cylinder. The weight helps gives this car much
better snow traction than the Jetta, but it's mileage is poor, and the
front seat is the LEAST comfortable of any car I've ever owned. Alas,
I didn't notice this in the 20-minute test drive.

I would love feedback from other people like me, who've had trouble
finding a comfortable car. I really wish the dealers would let me test-
drive a car for a day (or a week) so I could truly assess whether the
car was suitable for long drives.

Thanks in advance for any help!

Clay
Click to expand...

Try an SE Camry. Excellent front drivers seat. Great mileage for a
larger car. Good handling. I personally like the black upholstery with
the chrome accents. Seventeen inch alloy wheels. The car has a lot
going for it.

Ron
 
my crown vic gets 30+mpg on the highway with the cruise set at 65, and 22
mpg in town if i keep my foot out of it.
if the kids drive it, it gets 12 in town, and 15 onthe highway, cause they
like to hit the speed limiter.
thats why i don't let them have the keys anymore..
 
I'll second Ray's suggestion - I am 6' even and have an 08 Highlander
Limited _do not have the seat near the rearmost it will go - the steering
column telescopes and wheel tilts

I just sold a house, the agent used part of the commission to by an xB - he
is 65 and says its plenty roomy (I've not been in it to see)

Ron in Ca
 
ron said:
I'll second Ray's suggestion - I am 6' even and have an 08
Highlander Limited _do not have the seat near the rearmost it will
go - the steering column telescopes and wheel tilts
Click to expand...

You cannot go just by height alone, it is how you are proportioned
(torso length, leg length, arm length, etc.). I have not tried an '08
Highlander, but the prior model was simply horrible. My Father was
interested in buying one. He was only 5'8" and found the seating
position unsuitable. After spending 10 minutes trying to adjust the
seat and wheel he gave up and went elsewhere. The '08 may be much
better. I know my SOs '07 RAV4 has enough room for me to find a
comfortable position (6'2" and heavy). My Son is only 6', but we have
completely different requirements for seating. He has shorter legs and
a longer torso than I do. If I get in a car after he has driven it, I
have to move the seat way back, raise it (if it has a height
adjustment) and tilt it forward. I hate getting into a car after he
has driven it because the seat will be in a very uncomfortable
position for me.
I just sold a house, the agent used part of the commission to by an
xB - he is 65 and says its plenty roomy (I've not been in it to see)
Click to expand...

I like the looks of the new xB. I think it looks much cleaner than the
prior model. However it is also bigger and not as fuel efficient. I
thought Scions were supposed to appeal to the "younger" crowd.
However, I don't think I've ever seen an xB being driven by anyone
younger than 50. It seems to me that it should appeal to the same
people as the Honda Element, but from what I have seen, the Element
attracts a much younger group.

Ed
 
C. E. White said:
You cannot go just by height alone, it is how you are proportioned (torso
length, leg length, arm length, etc.). I have not tried an '08 Highlander,
but the prior model was simply horrible. My Father was interested in
buying one. He was only 5'8" and found the seating position unsuitable.
After spending 10 minutes trying to adjust the seat and wheel he gave up
and went elsewhere. The '08 may be much better. I know my SOs '07 RAV4 has
enough room for me to find a comfortable position (6'2" and heavy). My Son
is only 6', but we have completely different requirements for seating. He
has shorter legs and a longer torso than I do. If I get in a car after he
has driven it, I have to move the seat way back, raise it (if it has a
height adjustment) and tilt it forward. I hate getting into a car after he
has driven it because the seat will be in a very uncomfortable position
for me.


I like the looks of the new xB. I think it looks much cleaner than the
prior model. However it is also bigger and not as fuel efficient.
Click to expand...

I had looked up its EPA rating, too. Is it really not as fuel efficient or
are we just all confused by the new EPA ratings?
I thought Scions were supposed to appeal to the "younger" crowd. However,
I don't think I've ever seen an xB being driven by anyone younger than 50.
It seems to me that it should appeal to the same people as the Honda
Element, but from what I have seen, the Element attracts a much younger
group.

Ed
Click to expand...

Funnily enough, the two guys I know with Elements are not young (40's,
50's). I think the practical boxes just appeal to mature guys who have
given up on attracting chicks with the Corvette (or already caught the one
they want) and now just want a practical vehicle to haul themselves and
their crap around.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top