Jump to content
Create New...

regfootball

Members
  • Posts

    21,726
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    26

Everything posted by regfootball

  1. Ford and GM flat, Chrysler up. Strange, as i am looking hard at new rigs and for the first time ever am considering a Chrysler instead of GM or Ford. My boss loves his new Ram more than his last Chevy. Strange but some of the Chrysler stable like the Durango too and the new 200 seem to bringing new attention to the brand (plus all the JEEPNESS)......... GM in comparison, what compelling reasons on their volume models do they have to bring you in these days..........a lot of GM's models are getting stale.......
  2. JUST DO IT CADILLAC. COuld be part of renaming it from ATS to CT3 or CT4. It looks better too. There's a bit of awkwardness at the top of the window of the rear door, the curve was flattened a bit too much, but otherwise this would benefit Caddy huge.
  3. Nice write up. I'll take a Cruze though.
  4. Love the new logo without the wreath BTW. A bit large but whatever.
  5. I like all three. Some guy on another site said "forte Koup, is that you"? Lmao. And sort of true. I sat in a new ATS coupe last weekend. I fit like a glove. And it's so much easier to get in and out of. The car has no useful backseat to speak of, however, and it is bland and safe. 25 Cadillacs in a row and they all blend into each other now. New CTS AWD for 40g, wish I could! But here is the deal, between the dead looks, too high prices, and lack of space and room in nearly all Cadillacs, this is why Caddy is trending down. They need to sex up the whole model lineup fast. Add crossovers. Manage pricing better and give us some room ! I would bring the ATSL to the states and make that the sedan offering and use it to lure people back to the brand. I would clean up the CTS and make sure the CT6 launch is not botched.
  6. My boss' Ram truck is pretty nice. I think Ram is stealing sales from GM trucks.
  7. DRIVEN 2015 Mistusbishi Outlander Sport ES AWD and ES MT FWD I've previously reviewed the Outlander Sport a few times. If you scan prior threads and compare you will note that Mitsubishi has made improvements every year. (PISSED OFF DUE TO SPONTANEOUS WINDOWS SELF RESTART ERASED ALL MY TYPING) HIGHS Still great front seats. Comfy and wide enough for Amurchan butts. Front row of cabin nicely spacious. Console, dash, shifter, cupholders, nice layout. Dash and ergnomics still very good. Large side mirrors (YES listen to that GM). Good value for the dollar when equipped without too many options. Great warranty. AWD on the cheap. Improved MPG, which was already good to begin with. NVH improvements abound, wider glass, new CVT, extra sound materials. VERY quiet on highway at cruising speeds with CVT. New CVT is a huge upgrade. Simulated stepped shifting, no drone, no slipping, maximizes motor best it can. Improved acceleration is noticeable. This alone transforms the vehicle. Easy steering, not sporty or great feel, but easy and comfortable. Solid, bigger vehicle ride, thanks to long wheelbase and wide stance. Should compete well against new smaller competition like the Trax, HRV, etc. Mitsu brand has rebounded well with big sales and new dealerships.....here to stay LOWS They didn't change the engine. It's hardly a big deal now like before, but the new CVT almost demands a more sophisticated engine. No other engine options. 5 speed MT is no longer desirable after driving the CVT. At 70 mph in 5th, the rpm is almost 1000 higher than the CVT. Rear seatbacks don't recline Some (not me) may think it should have more trunk. Interior would be drab and without bling to some. Why so much black? FUSE system has a little bit of a rep for being difficult. Vehicle is a better buy when lightly optioned. Too much luxury and it loses its value equation. Vehicle is not meant to compete with base Escapes and such very well. At certain prices and trim you may want to step up. You may still want to pick your Mitsu dealer wisely, Mitsu still will never be Toyota. This vehicle is dying for a sport / Ralliart version. Imagine 270hp and AWD + stick...... SUMMARY I've had an affection for this rig since it has been out. It's been one of the few small AWD CUV's, a bit of a pioneer. Each year they have done minor tweaks. It now has evolved to the point where the powertrain and NVH issues have been finessed so it feels like a finished product. THis would be a great commuter vehicle for many in winter climes, and actually would be a fantastic trip vehicle too, due to its lazy composed mode of operation with the new CVT. The engine could still be improved, but is not an achilles heel. Its a bit of a tweener now, though. Its not in the class of an Equinox or Escape. And new competition has arrived with the Trax, HRV, etc. It will not be as small as those. So the big thing for Mitsubishi will be to position it to take on both classes. If priced and optioned correctly, it should be a nice option in comparison. I would avoid the MT in this rig now. It should be upgraded to a 6 speed, with a better clutch, and it should run lower rpm at highway speeds. It would be nice if you could get an AWD + stick, it would be a unique choice in the market. The MT does allow them to sell this package very cheap, and in that regard, its a great option to buy a crossover instead of a squashed sedan for the same or less money. You as a shopper would need to determine if the status of the brand is an issue. Mitsu is rebounding greatly in the US, and there are new dealers, and they are building new facilities. It seems they are here to stay. They are not Toyota or Chevy. But this particular model has kept the brand alive and now it is making them grow. People buy and like the vehicle and so that is a good building block. Because of evolving competition, despite the improvements, I would leave this graded at B-. The new CVT makes this a nice drive, but there is still the carryover engine and somewhat drab interior that can be improved. Mits keeps a lot of its vehicles the same for many years so I see them evolving these bits and pieces in the future. As for now, no reservations, if you want a cheap AWD crossover that gets good mpg and is a nice drive, you will find it here. I still may end up with one of these myself........ As much as the new Trax is appealing, GM will charge the same or higher prices, and i would rather pop for this outlander sport than the Trax. But a cheaper Escape may be more appealing at some point than this........
  8. the Grand Caravan has earned my kudos. The Pentastar motor is fantastic in the Chrysler products.
  9. I guess with my cobalt I could potentially be part of this? 2010. Not that I would necessarily.
  10. lowered the seat yes, but the pancake roof, while looking sexy, is still too low in relation, and the height of the side glass just ain't that much. The proportion of the length of the greenhouse glass to the height is exaggerated due to styling. Overall, like i said, i can forgive a lot on the car due to styling. But its definitely not an open air car. Reminds me of my father in laws 08 grand prix which i drove today. Same disease, just not as bad.....roof feels like its right on top of you. I would imagine a moonroof would help that feeling. Just to know too, the Taurus has some of that bunker feel going on too. A lot of cars do. Seating quality and feel of bunker are two different things, too. The seat itself really does nothing to contribute to a bunker feel. The height of the seat, even when adjusted favorably, still doesn't make the feel of a low heavy roof go away. Thats just my opinion, your results may vary. I'm certainly not trying to force an opinion on someone else, especially someone who owns the car. As far as the 4 cylinder, its puzzling to me. I really do think its there for fleet cars and because of EPA pressures. Its like GM never got time to do the best job of it in this vehicle. I think if they spend some time retuning the engine, the trans and shifting, and maybe work with changing the gearing, that maybe they get it so its at least drivable. Anyone who owns the 4 cylinder will learn how to drive it more smoothly over time of course, but they will be compensating for how clumsy it is. They won't be driving it the way they want. Maybe Chevy needs to make the 2.0t the base engine in this thing. And retune it for FE instead of 290hp. Tune it for about 250hp and high twenties combined EPA.
  11. it literally does take days sometimes to get around it. Lots going on, kids interrupt, all sorts of things. Its too bad but thats the way it goes.
  12. on its way bear with me DRIVEN slightly used 2014 Chevy Traverse LS FWD, not sure the MSRP HIGHS Snappy powertrain. Transmission shifts quick and finds the right gear, engine doesn't really have too much of a flat spot and revs nicely in this rig. Good passing power. Good driving position, passenger too. Good view out the front and not much hood to look over. Comfortable front row seats. Nice and wide for AMURCHAN butts. Feels decently carlike, for its size. Definitely not trucky like a Trailblazer. Steering that is neither too slow or too fast. And feels not too bad. Ride and bumps are nicely absorbed yet there is still a little feel. Not noisy inside. Clear gauges and mostly otherwise easy to use controls. Interesting dash design. Good ground clearance. Accommodates third row passengers better than most. Some may like the second row sliding seating. Plentiful cargo area. LOWS Sure i had the LS trim in gray but man it felt cheap inside. Cheap Chevy plastic all over. Thin steering wheel. Can I add cheap burlappy seat fabric while I am at it? SMALL MIRRORS. On an SUV, unforgivable. Radio unit, IMO should be up higher in the center stack, especially for touch screen or nav operations. Engine a bit raspy, depending on how hard you push it. Second row seating is tight. Seat bottoms are low, and footspace under the front seat is tough to come by. Rather curious considering its a tall vehicle. Blame the super high floor for ground clearance. Second row sliding seat mechanics feel flimsy, take too much effort to operate, and overall don't seem like they will hold up over time. Rear doors are kind of narrow. Tough for loading kids in car seats and squeezing into the third row. Steering wheel only comes up so high and is not adjustable fore and aft. This is a 'sitting on' vehicle, rather than 'sitting in'....and i sort of like 'sitting in'. Lots of Deja Vu here, even though the package is good, its feeling a bit old. Missing some wow factor. No passion for this thing really. Repeat : cheap interior (yes i know it is an LS) SUMMARY Really the best way to sum up the Traverse (and all the Lambadas) is to say there are reasons they are so successful. They hit the basics many were looking for in the three row crossover segment quite well. A nice combination of ample room and space, but in a maneuverable package. The powertrain has enough juice to pull the load, and feels sporty and car like in the process. The styling has been a hit, and has weathered time very well (even if it is showing its age a bit). Interestingly too, they hold their value well, which can be rare for GM products sometimes. I can't really say anything scathing about the Traverse, aside from my impression of the cheap interior on the LS. Also, to me, the touchscreen location being low on the center stack is something I dislike. But the rest of the vehicle is pretty solid. There is lots to like. It just doesn't feel like anything amazing or special........ I think some of the interior miscues and such, I will stick on a B+. I suppose if I had a leather LTZ with the captains chairs, maybe that would sweeten the pot for me. But these vehicles are expensive to start with. An LTZ gets pricey. At those higher prices, it had better blow me away. I may have to go sample a nice AWD LTZ for comparison. I am surprised there has never really been an optional powertrain on these things. A twin turbo v6 like Fords would be perfect, well at least for say the Acadia Denali or some of the Enclaves. Sidebar: I am actually shopping, we might buy something soon, so in this case its a real review for a possible purchase. Where I am at as far as that goes.....I feel like if i ended up with one, i would like it OK.....but I am not in love or blown away with the idea of owning one. To be honest, its lacking some personality. That said, i think they are very good vehicles with a nice dose of carlike behavior, and I would recommend them to lots of people. A good basic middle class people mover. Perhaps the Acadia version would be more my flavor.
  13. chuggin
  14. getting there - edit TESTED 2014 Mazda CX-9 AWD Sport, MSRP around 33k, best price around 28 and change HIGHS Still among the sportiest looking 3 row crossovers. New beak makes it really stylish. Snappy powertrain, even without many gears. Throaty exhaust. Man, does she handle nice! for a crossover. Drives like a sedan that sits taller Feels a lot smaller than its competition, not at all intimidating to drive Nice cockpit and gauges Great value in this config, had power seats, heated seats and dual AC...for many thou less than others with these two items Sliding second row seats make most of every inch of leg room depending on your situation Everyone will fit in three rows if you put the second row in the right spot. Third row access is easy to do. Interior plastics and surfaces look contemporary with their plain detailing and simplicity. Seats and their cloth are comfortable, solid, supportive, and high quality. Great crossover for DINKS, or a single, or if you have older kids and don't need to carry lots all the time. LOWS Biggest weakness is lack of cargo. Almost none behind the third row alone, and just behind the second row its not competitive with the Traverses of the world. I normally don't get into this, and it could be heresay, and no doubt other similar vehicles have issues, but i seemed to read a lot about problems with other model years. Interior plastics and surfaces look cheap with their plain detailing and simplicity. (pick a side) Interior might need a refresh. In fact, overall, it does feel a bit dated. Thin steering wheel. Third row is a bit tight, despite the flexible second row. This vehicle should consider a 4 cylinder option for better FE. SUMMARY The CX-9 is just about perfect for a Ford Edge intender who wants a third row seat (isn't that what it is?) Really its about the only one I have driven that feels competitive to the feel of a sedan, it's just taller. I really enjoyed driving it. Now here is the bad part. We actually are looking (that is a whole nother story) and have grown used to having a certain amount of cargo space. The CX-9 really falls somewhat short to some of the competition in that arena. Does it matter to you? is the question......many on the CX-9 forums I read did in fact say they wished for more cargo room. I look at it this way. If you have young kids, or more than 2 kids, this vehicle won't be a good primary vehicle for you. Things like strollers and pack and plays will become a challenge. If you have 2 older kids, however, and only travel occassionally, then this may be a perfect ride for you, just to have the occassional capability of someone in the third row. My impression after the drive was this. I would love for this to be my go to work vehicle. I drive in lots of tough winter stuff, and this vehicle has the right feel to tackle winter but still be a sporty everyday drive. I would look to this vs. a Ford Edge with the advantage coming down to that occassional third row. Otherwise, you basically have the same package as the Edge, and I think this may drive better than that. One other way this may have an advantage in the market, is compared to the new class of vehicles like the Rogue. Compact CUV's where they stuff in a truly occassional third row. The CX-9 now being on the market awhile won't cost a bunch more and it will in fact be a more useful vehicle in comparison to that. Aside from that, really the big advantage the Mazda has is that it drives quite nicely and thus has the brand character to fit into the rest of the Mazda lineup. As a distinct choice in the market, I like it enough to give it an A-, despite the lack of cargo space in the rear. Most buyers will give up some ride and drive for more space, but in this case, the smaller size of the vehicle contributes to making the ride and drive better for the driver. So give it points for being unqiue in that way. My neighbor has one, I wonder if he feels the same way? They also have a Honda Pilot and a new Mazda6.
  15. Wow, Fargo and Alexandria have superchargers? MIGHTGITME A TESLA......oh wait its 80g
  16. its comin DRIVEN 2015 Ford Explorer XLT 202 pkg 4wd, MSRP close or over 40k. HIGHS Grandiose feel of mass in the front of the vehicle. Vehicle is wide also, has hips. Panoramic view, ok, majestic view out the front. Comfortable and solid seating, each row. Excellent head room, hip room, shoulder room. Third row is more usable than you would think based upon sight. Nice dash and console layout........(this comment does not apply if MyFordTouch is installed) Feels quite solid. Stable and secure. Heavy, even. Moreso than most others in the segment. Gives an impression of quality. Decently quiet inside. Styling that has obviously been popular. And its unmistakable. Comfortable road ride and easy steering.....for those that don't like involved driving. Awesome flip and fold third row seats (this i can tell you from owning them for 6 years, they are awesome). Cargo well in the floor behind the third row stretches cargo area. Would be a fantastic choice for larger folks (like my friend who is 6'5 or so and prob 3 bills+) LOWS Honestly here, there is a lack of torque / oomph, and trans doesn't kick down on demand very well. Makes it feel a bit slow and sluggish actually, depending on where the throttle is. If you prefer cars..........Slow steering. A bit of a floater in the ride, too. Maybe feels a bit tippy. Comfortable road ride and easy steering.....for those that don't like involved driving. (Still worlds better than the truck based Explorer however) Why no fold flat front passenger seat? Visibility out the rest of the vehicle is not as awesome as the front. Maybe not deficient, just not really open. MyFordTouch ruins the gauges and center stack. I didn't even try to mess with it functionally. Bring knobs back. Second row seats don't all slide, and leg room for some might be a bit tight. Sort of puzzling on such a wide, heavy, and long rig. Gets pricey if you want certain things.... I'll admit there are some cheap interior bits on this thing too. And a lot of dark tones (even if you get Stone interior) SUMMARY I naturally am drawn to compare this to the Traverse. And where the Traverse feels a bit carlike, the Explorer is a bit more novacaine. The cabin might feel more roomy to some, however, with more usable hip, shoulder, and head room. Even if overall its probably a wash. There is a feeling of solidity in the Explorer that actually is appropriate to the name. So while the Explorer is not a CX-9 or even a Traverse, it sort of has attributes of its own that are positive and fit the positioning of the Explorer brand. Its a tight rope to walk for Ford to take the Explorer name after all those years on a frame chassis and apply the name to a unibody crossover. Considering that, they have done a nice job. It just won't excite anyone looking for a pulse in the ride and drive, or some verve in the powertrain. I imagine the Explorer Sport ramps it up to that notch, and so if you want to drop that much more money, go ahead. Keep in mind I have been driving a sort of cousin of this thing for the last six years (Taurus X). They feel quite a bit different. The T Rex is like a car, the Explorer is not. I really can't pick a winner between the Explorer and Traverse. They are a bit apart in feel and aura, but they both exist to do the same thing. The Explorer feels different, and doesn't at all feel like anything that wouldn't wear an Explorer name tag. Its another choice, and obviously a popular one. It too does the basics pretty well, has a different feel that some will also like, and provides a lot of value and versatility. There is room for improvement so I will give this a B- as well. Side note: this is probably a finalist in the competition for the new family rig.....excepting price perhaps....another disclaimer, the test drive was too short for my liking and was 'scripted' by salesdude, so I wasn't happy with that and consequently I may not have pushed the vehicle as much as I wanted.
  17. DRIVEN 2014 Chevy Impala 1LT 2.5 HIGHS Who can deny it's a sexy shape? STUNNER Lots of beautiful styling details if you look long enough and take notice Makes good on the promise and premise of a full sized sedan, lots of room and space, front and back and trunk This thing is definitely a great highway cruiser, in the vein of so many other GM sedans, you can be king of the cornfield states Seating all around is very comfortable Interior design is definitely flashy, good looking gauges and useful controls MyLink system has a lot of nice features Heft and solidity lacking in so many sedans these days The 4 cylinder, if set on cruise, and settled in, and is not asked to be disturbed, cruises pretty nicely Optional sound system was very good sound, I was sort of impressed. LOWS Yup, like so many recent GM products, its a bit of a claustrophobic bunker. Blame it on the sexy roofline and greenhouse. Mailslot view out the rear. Side windows don't help with that, they are tiny and they suck. Really, there is too much going on on the dash. I love the design, but its overdone and it is in fact distracting, especially with the sun glare off the shiny parts. It's like 'dashgasm', there's a lack of taste or restraint. I'll pile on and call the interior plastics in many places..."cheap". Chevy's pebble graining is getting old and really doesn't cut it at certain prices. I am ok with the look of the strange steering wheel but the steering wheel buttons are a huge fail with their plastic skin covering. This will break over time, it feels like crap, you can't really feel the buttons, there is a lack of tactility. Heft and solidity mean a car that's just too damn heavy. Low roofline / pancake roof. See above. MyLink stuttering and glitches with bluetooth streaming A car that's too damn heavy means not as good of mpg as it should get; why is the mpg on the Impala so much less than the Malibu? 21/31 does not cut it when the competition gets nearly the same out of its v6's and turbo fours. Biggest flaw, the four cylinder powertrain in this car is simply half baked, not ready for prime time, and not at all ready to be in this car. You can't just simply get in and drive. You have to get a feel for the flaws in how it shifts, where the power and lack of power is. The power delivery is not linear. The transmission won't kick down. you can't say its tuned for mpg, because the mpg is not there, either. It settles in nicely to cruise at 70+ mph at only 2000 rpm....but then why the low mpg? Otherwise, getting there, the car is confused, hiccups, is not smooth, is difficult to drive. I noticed that after 15-20 miles I was learning how to work the throttle more to make up for the car's deficiencies, but whoa, you really end up concentrating too much to how to drive the thing. This is not what the Impala should be (a high effort car). It is so easy to see how the v6 would be so much better a match for this car. The whole rest of the car has the persona of a laid back v6 cruiser, just missing the right engine. SUMMARY I'll give the four cylinder Impala a B-. If they work on the powertrain of the four I will gladly upgrade the score. Obviously, Chevy likely feels forced to put a 4 banger in this car due to fleets and the Oppressive EPA, but clearly this car rejects this setup as it is. Whether it just needs a lot of work and magic or whatever else, remains to be seen. Turbo perhaps? All I know is I drove the Ford lot by my place today and they had a 2015 Taurus on the lot. SEL with Sync, heated leather and v6, and the best price was 25g. The Impala is a great car, but the Taurus is creamy smooth in its own right. I don't think the current powertrain buys the Impala a good spot in the 25k real price class. The concept of a 4 cylinder or diesel impala with true high mpg makes sense to me, but its not realized here. For the same 25g, I would pop for the Taurus. If you want to say the Impala is a better car, it may be, but only at higher prices, with a v6, and even then it will depend on equipment. Its possible the loaded Impala with v6 will merit an A. Fine, but then why wouldn't I get a LaCrosse? All the other sins I can forgive as I know they are bought with the sexy shape. The powertrain mess though, is just gonna frustrate the snot out of you. Not the way to serve up a full size sedan.
  18. Driven (rental) 2014 Jeep Compass (probably a base model) not even sure if it was just fwd or not HIGHS - Chrysler tranformed a vehicle that was ugly at the start, into something sorta attractive Decent space for driver and passengers Interior layout wasn't too bad, much better than the original layout I like big mirrors Seating position is good for those that like crossovers Feeling of heft and truckiness that might appeal to a Jeep brand intender Ok cargo space Extra cubby in the dash Cupholder position and location. There is no doubt that these are affordable for a new vehicle. LOWS - Crap powertrain, even if i can't tell if its a CVT or a six speed, this thing is junk. Might be refined for 1988. Terrible ride quality, I don't care if it's 'trying to be a Jeep' this thing has no compliance for bumps Dead, heavy steering, again I don't care if it's a Jeep Back and butt punishing seats. Loud inside, where is the sound attenutation? Overall marginal NVH. While I am piling on, the stereo sucks. $h! gas mileage. I think I barely cracked 20. Terrible for a small bad riding vehicle. I'll mention again the powertrain sucked, that really is your major impression on this vehicle. And i think it is mainly the transmission and its shifting and delivery of power. Interior and exterior upgrades and changed Chrysler made to prolong this vehicle's life, are all for naught with such a bad driving experience. Not sure if I would take it if it were free (stick versions may be a different story) SUMMARY Not gonna spend a lot of time on this one. Everything up above sums it up quite a bit. I netted about 100 miles on the thing, and it was 95 miles too many. It was disappointing because its actually an attractive vehicle now, inside and out, since Chrysler redid a bunch of it post crash. There is just no sophistication anywhere else in this vehicle. Neither the powertrain or the ride and drive / handling were satisfying in any way. Perhaps Jeep was trying to make it feel more like a hard riding, noisy truck, but that doesn't wash. It's funny because when i returned this thing for the Altima we got rear ended in, they had a new Cherokee there and I really thought it would have been fun to try, if anything just to see the contrast. I understand the appeal for Jeep to keep this in the lineup to sell at the low end, but it just like GM keeping old Impalas. At some point they become draconian beyond comprehension and it brings the whole brand down. I will give the vehicle a C- for just a couple reasons, one because its packaged well, two, it looks nice, and three, its priced so everyday folks can get one. In that point of view, i can't give it a D- like I want to. This would be a neat little rig with some NVH, a far better powertrain, and some work on the ride and handling. I guess what you get if you do that is a new Cherokee. I can't think of hardly anyone i would recommend this to when so many other decent vehicles are out there instead.
  19. i finally get a couple free minutes to write something......
  20. Brown/brown, quite dapper. I worry about pricing, sice base Escapes sell for under 20g new. But the package here is the appeal. Imagine granny living in a condo with indoor parking and small spaces. (Exactly what my parents have). Cars like this for older folks to park in those 8 foot stalls between columns and still have high seating. Drew is nail on the head. Everything's gone up so much in 4 years. Soul aside this may be among the cheapest of cars we see going forward.
  21. the Trax will sell a bunch. I saw a couple when i visited the rents up near the Canadian parts a few months ago. They look great if a little cheap inside. People more and more want crossovers. They want taller, easier to get in and out of, etc. This will fit the bill and still make a great commuter. I remember my selling days, having to sell SX4's. Can't tell ya how many times more folks would buy a vehicle like that if at the time the Chevy's of the world were making them. Trax is perfect at this time, if a tiny bit over priced. The AWD in a small package will be a big draw in these parts. BTW, people are asking insane prices for used AWD SX4's these days. Proof to me that there are people looking for the small AWD cars.
  22. Cadillac is up by one unit. Must be because of the new guy and the new naming scheme.
  23. took one for a spin last night. what a nice refreshing drive for a larger crossover. Lots of kit for the $$$$ too. Despite what the specs say, a bit tight on the inside in the back 2 rows and for cargo. Very appealing, feels a lot lighter than its size and weight would suggest.
  24. now that i am doing some unplanned shopping, this has crossed my radar a little more, I am finding the Traverse, Explorer, Durango, anything with AWD and its darn pricey. As in, I am priced out. Still need the room though. The sport trim level of this vehicle has pretty much all i really need and is a fair amount less than those others. Cargo space is a bit shy, but after driving the Traverse and feeling underwhelmed again, I am guessing that this Ford Edge on steroids may have appeal to me?
×
×
  • Create New...
Everywhere

Write what you are looking for and press enter or click the search icon to begin your search