what year had most room?

"Art" wrote in message news:XBA2f.11946$ snipped-for-privacy@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net...

There have been no recalls for either the Freestyle or Five Hundred. They were not generally available until January. Consumer Reports publishes it's car results in April. I assume the April issue has to go to press in early March. What are the chances that CR had any meaningful data on either vehicle? And how does the CR predicted reliability jive with the 41 people who provided very feedback to CU Online? No one really had much bad to say about either the Freestyle or the Five Hundred. Typical shoddy CR data collection as far as I am concerned. Now if you prefer JD Powers Appeal Ratings, the Avalon is the best large sedan - 5 stars in every category. On the other hand, both the Freestyle and Five Hundred rated as good or better than the Toyota Camry in every category. The Camry was "about average" in every category. I suppose nothing is more average than a Camry. The Five Hundred out scored the Camry in Performance, Comfort, and Overall Appeal. The Freestyle out scored the Camry in Comfort, Features and Instrument Panel, Style, and Overall Appeal. The Freestyle also out scored the Highlander in every category. The Toyotas did do better in the quality rating, although they were nothing special. The Camry and Highlander were slightly better than the Five Hundred. It is interesting that the Five Hundred out scored the Freestyle in the quality ratings. I don't really see how this is rational, since under the covers, they are the same mechanically except for the trunk / station wagon rear end.

Ed

I see where you are confused. The reliability rating was in this months issue of Consumer Reports where they rated some SUV's. It was not in the April issue. The freestyle was not rated but it had a predicted reliability score of much worse than average.

I checked at allData site and pulled up the TSB's for the Freestyle:

I don't know if this is an unusually high number for a new car. But it could be this list, plus complaints from readers, led to their rating. When the first generation LH cars came out, CR gave it an outstanding review but they had to eat their words when reliability complaints started coming in.

By the way, I happened to look at the number of TSB's for the Magnum....... a heck of a lot of them there.

Lots of room compared to what? A Camry?:

Yeah, I'll bet that that Five Hundred will really work for him with that extra two-tenths of an inch of head room and three-tenths less leg room.

I feel your pain... and I'm only 6'4". There are a lot of cars I won't drive because there's not enough head room and there's more that I won't drive because of visibility issues.

For what it's worth, my '01 Toyota Sienna is very comfortable for and offers good visibility to people my size. However, at your height, you'll probably be tilting the seat back considerably (I keep it fairly well upright) and the "B" pillar may block your view to the side. The newer Siennas may be a completely different story, of course. My '01 LE has a seat height adjustment that is independent of the forward and backward adjustment, which is a good thing. I'd rate the '01 Sienna as better for people my height than the Aerostar (I owned a '91, I'm glad you're happy with yours but mine was a miserable experience). As for saving gas, the Sienna can get 25mpg on the highway. My '00 Rav4 is also comfortable for me.

You might also find that the VW EuroVan would be comfortable for you or easily modified to be comfortable for you. I owned one. Stock, it was fairly good for people my height but I also noticed that the seat base was a fairly simple affair (planar sides and right-angle flanges) which might be easily modified for even more headroom and maybe more legroom. Still, I like the Sienna better than the EuroVan for headroom, legroom and visibility.

Please notice that I said "would be comfortable for you" as opposed to actually recommending you buy one. I owned a EuroVan and it has the distinction of being the second least-reliable vehicle and second most-expensive (lifecycle cost) vehicle I've ever owned (the Aerostar was fully the worst and by a wide margin even over the EuroVan).

By the way, I dimly recall an ad for the VW Rabbit featuring Wilt Chamberlain (or someone else I recognized as "basketball legend") back around the time of its introduction.

Back in 1979 or so, my wife (brand-new at that time) and I were looking into buying a car. We didn't have a lot of money, so we looked at the Pinto. If I recall correctly, the Pinto "Pony." I got in and found that I was sitting with my head bent over and the back of my head and the top of my neck pressed into the ceiling.

I asked the sales-droid, who could clearly see the way I was sitting in the car if there was a seat-back adjustment I'd overlooked.

"Not on this model," he replied.

"Well, I don't think I'll be comfortable driving this car," I grunted from the driver's seat..

"Some people," he sniffed, "expect a SOPHISTICATED small car at this price."

My snappy retort was to leave and buy a Chevy.

My wife, who was unused to dealing with height issues (she's not tall at all), was also surprised I didn't want the Pinto Pony.

The other problem with the 500, besides a barely adequate engine, is that the driver's leg room is skinny as hell. It is like putting your legs down a funnel. Also the door panels are incredibly cheap looking.

I coulda sworn Don Fearn typ'd:

OK, I got my Box . . . .

What a COOL little car! FUN to drive, and I'm getting even more attention than I got when I had a 240Z way back when . . . .

It has a LOT of headroom, but the legroom is merely adequate. So, if your 7'3" is mostly torso, the xB is something you WILL want to look at. If it's mostly legs; maybe less so, although it looks like it wouldn't be too difficult to modify the driver's seat to move it further back. There is a LOT of space between the driver's seat and the passenger's seat . . . .

-Don (loving his xB in Rochester MN)

But where is CR getting the data that supports the poor relibability rating? They only send out the survey / appeal for money once a year in time to gather data for their big auto issue.

Most of the TSBs you have listed are just general information bulletins that describe general service or diagnostic proceedures. Most of the ones you listed apply to all Ford vehicles. None are recalls.

Here is a similar list of TSBs for a 2005 Camry with the 3MZ-FE engine:

EL005-05 APR 05 Restraints - Erratic Passenger Air Bag Lamp Operation EG014-05 MAR 05 Cooling System - Radiator Cap Inspection Procedure EG010-05 FEB 05 Engine Controls - MIL ON/DTC P0346 EG009-05 FEB 05 Engine Controls - MIL ON/O2 Sensor DTC's Set ST002R-04 FEB 05 Steering/Suspension - Vehicle Pulls/Drifts To The Left EG045R-04 JAN 05 Engine Controls - Entering VIN When Replacing ECM/PCM TC002R-03 DEC 04 Engine/Transmission Controls - Resetting ECM Memory

AC009-04 DEC 04 A/C - Sensor Inspection Procedures BO022-04 DEC 04 Restraint System - Seat Belt Extender Availability BO011R-03 DEC 04 Interior - Console Lid Latch Part Available TC007-04 OCT 04 M/T - Shift Lever is Loose Feeling/Rattles EG044-04 OCT 04 Engine - Main Bearing Journal Diameter Stamping Revision PG007-04 OCT 04 Body - Automatic Door Lock Function/Initialization BO021R-03 OCT 04 Body - Sliding Roof Repair Tips BO031R-01 AUG 04 Wipers/Washers - Windshield Wiper Identification

And the Camry is a "proven" design. It actually has more TSBs than the Freestyle. If this is the reason for a bad reliability rating, why doesn't the Camry have a bad rating? The 2004 Avalon had the same number of TSBs as the Freestyle.

The only thing I have seen that reflects poorly on the Freestyle's reliability was the JD Powers initial quality survey (and it was average) - and that isn't really a judge of reliability. The vehicles have been available for less than a year, so there can be no long term reliability data. It appears to me that CR is just making stuff up in this case.

And it you don't think CR has a Toyota bias, go look at the Tundra ratings. They show Tundra's have having excellent suspension reliability for ever year. This is a joke. Tundras have a major problem with ball joint failures. NHTSA even forced Toyota to recall Tundras to address this dangerous defect. I guess this is what CR considers "excellent" reliability.

Ed

The numbers can be very misleading. Best thing to do is go set in the car. Every Japanese car I have owned, or spent much time in seems "tight" no matter what the numbers say (1975 Datsun 280Z, 1980 Accord, 1983 Toyota Cressida, 1983 Mazda 626, 1992 Toyota Camry, 1997 Honda Civic). Last year I was shopping for a new pickup. Although I found the Tundra to be a nice truck in a lot of ways, I found the cab tight compared to even a Chevrolet Colorado - despite Toyota's claims of roominess. I rode in my Sister's Civic this morning and struggled to find a comfortable position. There was just one position where I could stretch my legs, if I let my head sag a little to the right, it hit the assist handle, the side of my knee was against the climate control pod in the dash, the seat was too low, etc., etc. While the "numbers" say the Civic is within a few tenths of having as much front seat room as a Focus, the reality is very different. The Japanese are great at specmanship. Before deciding a Camry is almost as large on the inside as a

Ed

You would probably hate by Thunderbird. I am 6'3" or so. Once I am in the car it is OK. Plenty of leg room, but the headroom is tight. Biggest problem is the low window line. Folding up to fit through the door requires some agility. In the now distant past I owned a couple of Austin-Healey Sprites. Although these were small cars, I never recall having any issues with head or leg room. And the Jensen-Healy I owned was positively spacious compared to many cars I owned, although I did modify the seat tracks so the driver's seat could go back further. For some reason the manufacturer had added blocking brackets to the seat tracks that limited the rearward motion. I suppose it probably had something to do with the seat belt location.

Do you notice that you are taller the first thing in the morning? Best I can figure I am at least 1/2" taller at 6 am than I am at 6 pm. This caused me a real problem with a Mazda 626. I test drove the car after work one day and decided to buy it. The next morning when I got in the car my head was against the roof and I had to bend over to sit in the car with the seatback in my preferred position. I had to drive to work with the seat back inclined at an unpleasant angle. And this was despite having a height adjustable seat. Eventually I reworked the rear seat bracket to lower the back of the seat by about an inch so I could live with the car. However since then, I pay a lot more attention to the head room in a car before I buy it.

I vaguely remember those ads as well.

I guess 1" must have made all the difference. I am 6'3" and was a very happy Pinto owner. But mine was a 1972 hatchback. Maybe that made a difference. I replaced the Pinto with a Datsun 280Z which had similar head room, but more leg room and a reclining seat (although the package area limited the angle severely). The problem with the Datsun was elbow room. There was no good place to rest my left elbow/arm.

Which one? Not a Chevette I'd wager. They had less headroom than a Pinto. A better choice for you in that time frame would have been a Ford Fiesta. My younger sister had a 1978 Fiesta that I eventually obtained to use as a commuter car (around 1985). It was great. Wonderful upright driving position, great visibility, indestructible (well almost), peppy, great mileage, etc. If it had only had A/C. Eventually I gave it up because of the lack of air conditioning.

It would have made a great autocross car - at least mine did. Of course by

Ed

The numbers were mostly for "mike hunt"'s benefit. I'm annoyed by his various unsubstantiated claims and, when I have a minute, I take a few minutes to supply facts that refute them.

Absolutely. See my later post on the Sienna, Eurovan, etc.

Actually, the Camry is 4.3 inches shorter, 2.8 inches narrower and 1 foot,

When deciding whether or not the Camry is similar in size to an Explorer, you could also compare (figures from Edmunds.com)

The weight: Explorer - 4440 lbs Camry - 3164 lbs

Or the gas mileage: Explorer - 15/21 Camry - 24/34

Or the price: Explorer - $25,872 Camry - $19,401 (Edmunds TMV reports, Camry LE vs Explorer XLS with RWD only)

You could also factor in things like the cost of replacement tires, the turning radius or how easy it is to wash. Clearly, the Camry is a smaller car than the Explorer, in many important ways.

The Five Hundred? A very nice looking car but I'd still take the Camry. As far as I'm concerned, powertrain comparability is the power-to-weight ratio (performance comparability, if you will). The Camry does have a smaller engine but it weighs 500 lbs less than the Five Hundred, so it's going to be nearly as responsive and give you a 5mpg bonus on the highway. It's OK with me if my tuneups are cheaper because my car has a 4 cylinder. engine. Which vehicle is actually quicker in the quarter mile is an interesting question, too. The SE has the additional benefit of a CVT (I'm presuming Ford would program the CVT to let the engine work at its peak power RPM during the whole quarter mile) but the Camry has variable valve timing (I do think I'd pick the Ford to win, in fact, I'd like to test drive it to see just what the CVT does with full throttle from 0-70).

As far as "less expensive" goes, I don't know why you think so. Edmunds TMV is $20,926 for the Five Hundred SE or $1500 more than the Camry SE (no options, base equipment package seems very comparable).

Finally, the Five Hundred is a completely new car, the transmission is probably a new design and the engine is probably a fairly new design, too. The Five Hundred would have to be a LOT less money than a Camry before I'd consider it ($5K or so). I owned a '91 Aerostar. They had been in production for 7 years or so by the time mine was built, so they'd had lots of practice and lots of opportunities to improve the weak points and it was still the most unreliable and expensive car I've ever owned, by far. When I contacted Ford to discuss the situation, they were absolute turds about it. But that's just my unhappy experience. The Original Poster seems to be happy with his Aerostar(s). I hope he remains so.

Don't listen to C.E. White (a/k/a Ed). A while ago, he took the starting MSRP of a LeSabre and compared it to the TOP MSRP of an Avalon. When I busted him for it, he then focused on a discounted LeSabre price, but still compared that to the Avalon's top MSRP to make it look like the Avalon was overpriced when in fact they cost about the same (I guess he thinks that Toyota dealers won't knock a bit off MSRP for their cars). And he's still bummed that his only Toyota (from the early 80s!) turned out to be a lemon and thinks that Toyota today is still no more reliable than North American brands. He's just as delusional and misinformative as "Mike Hunt".

Whoops, I was talking about 2005 models. I did not know Ford had made the

According to Cars.com

length -

width

I have no idea what driving a 2006 Explorer is like. I owned a 1996 and never had any problem fitting it anywhere. No so for a Expedition though.

The Camry SE has a manual tranmission and a 4 cylinder vs the Five Hundred SE's CVT and V-6. I think you need to compare the Camry LE V-6 to get a fair comaprison. In this case, the Camry lists for $500 more.

The Five hundred's V-6 has been around for quite a few years and has been used in Tauri and Escapes. The transmission is a new design produced by ZF in Europe. However it is based on Volvo experience with this type of transmission. My Father has a Freestyle with the transmission and I am very impressed with the operation.

And don't overlook the extremely high routine maintenance cost Toyota inflicts on it's Customers. The 60,000 mile valve adjustment could end up costing you a thouand dollars if you are unlucky, or just a few hundred if you are lucky.

I suspect you could buy a Five Hundred for $5000 less than a Camry (when comparibly equipped).

A good friend has owned two Aerostars. He was very happy with the first one. The second one has not been as good, but it has not been horrible either. Persaonlly, I never much cared for them. I always thought the Chrysler mini-vans was a far better design for that type of vehicle. But then I never much cared for the whole mini-van class. I much prefer the old style station wagons.

Ed

You "busted" no one. You are deluded if you don't think you can buy a LeSabre for less than an Avalon.

Do people who buy Toyota not even bother to shop for other cars? Do you just bend over for the Toyota salesmen? Every time I shop for a Toyota I walk away thinking people who buy them are crazy. Last fall I tried to buy a Tundra. I could have bought an F250 for much less. It makes no sense at all.

You keep ignoring what started that the thread - a Toyota saleman adverising an over-priced Avalon. I was comparing a typical LeSabre to that particular Avalon. Anyhow, see my other response to this post.

Ed

The Camry is significantly smaller than the Five Hundred, too. It's some 10 inches shorter and 4 inches narrower

While you may not have had any problem fiting an Explorer somewhere, some of us find "easy to park" to be important.

I used the automatic's price.

You either overlooked or ignored what I had to say about comparable powertrains, the comparability is in the end result. The power-to-weight ratio of a 4-cylinder Camry is similar to a Five Hundred and I'd prefer a four-cylinder engine for better mileage and extra workspace under the hood, anyway.

The Camry SE V6 will perform better and still gets better gas mileage than the Five Hundred, so, if you're married to marketing hype and just have to get a V6, go ahead and make that comparison. I'm going with "powerful enough" and "far better gas mileage"

How much experience is that? I hadn't noticed that any Volvos come to the US with a CVT.

I just scheduled a Toyota for it's 60,000 mile checkup. I asked what was involved and the service manage said nothing about valves.

Yeah, we shop around.

Why would you think an Avalon and a LeSabre are comparable? The least expensive Avalon, the XL, has a much more powerful engine, an extra gear on the transmission and quite a few more luxury standard features than the LeSabre Custom. Your Buick price advantage will depend more heavily on givebacks and so forth, because the invoice on the Avalon is less than the invoice on the Buick, which may save you money at purchase time. If you move up to the Limited to get dual climate control and so on, the price advantage of the Buick disappears. The Avalon gives you a fuel economy bonus, too.