Station Wagons

compared to SUVs.

formatting link
I don't understand why some people bash SUVs.SUVs take the place of Station Wagons nowadays.My dad owned two Station Wagons, a 1955 Ford Station Wagon and later on a 1959 Oldsmobile Station Wagon. cuhulin

Reply to
cuhulin
Loading thread data ...

Station wagons look better, and for the weight of the vehicle will hold a much larger model sailplane (keep your priorities straight).

SUVs are for people who can't drive and know it -- at least subliminally. They buy SUVs to have lots of metal between them and the innocents that they are going to hit.

Real men are confident enough in their masculinity to drive itty bitty cars, or even the occasional beige 4-door.

Reply to
Tim Wescott

I don't remember what size engine that 1959 Oldsmobile station wagon had in it, but it was a real Gas Hog.While driving that vehicle, you could see the gas gauge needle steady moving toward Empty, I mean it was physcially moving like a second hand on a clock running backwards.Finally traded that Gas Hog station wagon in on a 1967 Plymouth Fury II four door hard top car with a 318 engine.That Plymouth was a Much, Much Better vehicle than that Oldsmobile Gas Hog. cuhulin

Reply to
cuhulin

My understanding is that most SUVs sit higher for greater ground clearance (allows you to drive over rocks and boulders and stuff). This raises CG and affects handling and rollover.

Also, most station wagons today are unibody and hence lighter and more fuel efficient.

Of course, the crossovers are neither fish nor fowl, somewhat closer to a station wagon- in fact some are VERY much station wagons with the suspension jacked up an inch or so.

Reply to
Don Stauffer

I own both. Both have their place. Dodge Caravan for most use and will carry a 4 x 8 sheet of plywood. 4 wheel drive SUV when we have 2 foot snow storms and for 4 wheeling in the mountains. ww

>
Reply to
WW

If you are sitting up higher, you can look down on the peons.Maybe that is why those soccer moms like SUVs? cuhulin

Reply to
cuhulin

I've heard that stated as exactly a reason that many people like SUVs. Of course those same people don't realize that that higher seating position means a higher center of gravity and shittier handling. Cars aren't sold on performance or handling anymore, they're sold by number of cupholders and stupid electronic features.

Just today I got "the look" from my boss when I chose to drive my Porsche 944 to work rather than my Impala (because we're predicted to get a heavy snow this PM) he couldn't imagine that anyone would rather drive RWD than FWD in the snow, I explained to him that I had 195mm Dunlop Winter Sports on the 944 while the Impala has 225? I think? Goodyear POS all-season tires. still didn't get it. asked if I was worried about "fishtailing" with a RWD car. I told him that oversteer is when the passenger is scared; understeer is when the driver is scared. He still didn't get it. Oh well...

nate

Reply to
N8N

I think the SUVs were marketed to the soccer mom mentality, who thought they were buying smartness and safety.

Reply to
hls

yeah, they were. It really frosts my cookies too, it seems like "SUVs are safer" is almost canon now, despite its only being true in the sense of *if* you wreck into an average car, you might be more likely to survive the crash. Sort of like "slower is safer" - very debatable when you look at the evidence, but if you question it outside of a few small circles, people look at you like you're an idiot. We've become a nation that latches onto sound bites and doesn't display a whole lot of critical thinking.

nate

Reply to
N8N

I just now saw on local tv noonday news, actor Charlie Sheen's SUV was stolen.It was found (upside down, On Star) about 100 feet down in a deep ravine. cuhulin

Reply to
cuhulin

Are station wagons being made today? They certainly aren't calling them station wagons. I have a Taurus station wagon. I once gave a plumber a ride in it and he looked all around and said "Is this a station wagon? I don't think I've ever been in one before. Yeah, this is the first one I've been in."

I've been in a station wagon. The 64 Dodge Dart my father got was a great old car. The rear window could be rolled down with a lever on the front dash. These days, that's just begging for a lawsuit by the auto makers. Back then, if a kid fell out the back, well, that's just the breaks. :-)

My father has had several over the years but that was my favorite one. He now has a Dodge Caliber which, I suppose, could be called a station wagon. Or could it?

Reply to
dsi1

Exactly. My wife is 4'10 11/16ths" and feels empowered by the size and height of her Highlander. She tells me I'll have to pry her SUV from her cold dead hands... Ben

Reply to
ben91932

This is why land surveyors and many construction folks used utility vehicles before they were renamed "sport" utility vehicles and lost a lot of their utility. Now they get pickups and put caps on them to get the utility back that was lost from the good ol' Suburbans.

Yes, but not nearly as much as the idiot pundits, nor the staged "demos" of the credability-less CR claim. The same idiot maneuvers by incompetent drivers will roll cars as well, the only difference is that the incompetent drivers are more likely to try those maneuvers in the "mighty" SUV.

Most (all) "station wagons" today are at least 30% smaller than those of yesterday, which is why folks moved to utility vehicles which then renamed "sport" utility vehicles.

The so-called crossovers are mostly reworked mini-vans since mini-vans have become un-trendy.

Reply to
Pete C.

SUVs were marketed to anyone they could snag with the added "sport" label. The hapless utility vehicles which got branded with that "sport" moniker had years of proven smartness and safety before the marketing folks introduced them to some of the least competent drivers on the planet. Even today, the insurance industry statistics show that your risk of injury is lower in a large SUV or truck.

Reply to
Pete C.

You're right. Doesn't have to be a "small" person either. I think the height/visibility/power/invincibility is a big part of it. Decades ago when I got married, had kids, and bought a house a friend wanted to dump his '66 F-150 because he needed cash. I was driving a '64 Bug. Didn't care at all for big vehicles. He talked me into taking it for a drive, saying it would be great for hauling stuff. Got to admit the height/bulk was an attraction. A pickup in the city was king of the hill back then. And winding out that 352 in first was the closer. I bought it. Never regretted it either, since back then I *did* need to haul stuff often. Back to mid-size/small cars now. When I need something hauled I pay for the delivery.

--Vic

Reply to
Vic Smith

I told him that oversteer is when the passenger is scared; understeer is when the driver is

I've gotta remember that as I drive my '06 Crown Vic ex-cop car to work with a fellow worker with a bad case of imaginary passenger brake pedal.

Reply to
Steve Walker

The name is reputedly regarded as image poison -- cars are sold to a substantial degree as "skins" for your self-image, and a station wagon is what Walter Mitty actually drives, not what he fantasizes about. But the vehicle is very much around. Just parked the ol' Forester and called it a night. Subaru calls it a wagon and so does edmunds.com (which lists 40 of the things), but cars.com calls it a crossover and doesn't even have the term "wagon" among their choices, so YMMV.

If it's based on a unibody and has, or reasonably could have, a sedan cousin (which lets out SUVs), doesn't have a sliding cargo door on the side (bye-bye minivans), and has a more or less vertical keister (so much for hatchbacks), I call it a station wagon. The manufacturer may prefer a name or acronym that evokes the Baja 1000 or the Nürburgring or valet parking at the Ritz or a big buckle from the National Finals Rodeo or whatever other identity you want to rent, but {pause to check my pay stub} nope, I don't work for them...

--Joe

Reply to
Ad absurdum per aspera

I wonder how many people would genuinely think that your F-150 is a "safer" vehicle than your 944, especially in the snow.

(For that matter, a lot of people would probably think your 944 is a handful under any conditions, whereas you, being a driving enthusiast, just think of it as a responsive car that you can predicably put where you want.)

Probably a hugely intersecting set of people are ignorant of what a difference it makes to be properly shod for winter conditions (or even how big the differences can be from one all-season-compromise tire to another)... to say nothing of how many people drive around, because of either financial necessity or ignorance, on what might have been a good tire two years ago when the tread was a lot further from the wear bars...

Not to mention that fishtailing is usually the result of hamfisted control inputs (and/or tires inappropriate for conditions).

Be careful out there,

--Joe

Reply to
Ad absurdum per aspera

Around here, pretty much all of the non-wrecked P71s end up with second careers as taxi cabs. They seldom even bother to repaint them from the standard FoMoCo B/W pattern. They just slap some colorful decals over the scraped spot where the 'POLICE' letters were peeled off. The poor things look embarrassed. The Panther platform may be long-obsolete, but they certainly seem to be able to last 3 or 4 hundred K miles with little problem, even when heavily abused like city PDs do.

Reply to
aemeijers

Heh... didja see that crash test video a while back of a (newer than mine) F-150 against a Mini Cooper?

Actually if the F*rd were 4WD I probably would have driven that, but as it is they're probably about even as far as tires and straight line stability go, and I've logged FAR more miles in the 944, I just feel more comfortable driving it. And I'd need some weight in the bed of the truck, although there's a sand/gravel/stone place about a block away, so that's not a problem.

It's really quite stable. I don't have a limited slip in it; you can light 'em up and burn 'em off and the back end still won't move around all that much. Nail it going around a corner and the back end comes around, but in a predictable, catchable manner. Surprisingly so for the wheelbase; maybe the ultra-wide track helps in that respect or there's some other factor I'm not taking into account? I'd call it pretty benign, really; its worst "faults" from a safety perspective are the lack of ABS and airbags, which I hope not to miss :)

I remember trying to drive a friend's old Dodge Magnum in the snow, even with snow tires and weight in the trunk it was quite the handful. Once you got going though, you could put momentum to work for you :) Of course snow tires have improved quite a bit in the last however many years... maybe with the same tires that I have on the

944 it wouldn't be nearly so hairy.

nate

Reply to
N8N

MotorsForum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.