The Trick Question...

[falconman13]

SysEng

Using your logic, I would need 2 vehicles, a CVPI wont hold as much as a minivan or a TaurusX, and a F350 wont get the MPG .

[Anthony]

SysEng

Using your logic, I would need 2 vehicles, a CVPI wont hold as much as a minivan or a TaurusX, and a F350 wont get the MPG .

 

That would not be economical. Now you have two car payments.

[SysEng]

SysEng

Using your logic, I would need 2 vehicles, a CVPI wont hold as much as a minivan or a TaurusX, and a F350 wont get the MPG .

 

No, I'd say you need a F350... unless a roughly $1200 difference per year in fuel is that critical to you. Not many people in that category. And no, just because fuel economy is fashionable doesn't mean its an issue.

 

However, this whole thread is losing a critical issue here.

 

Too wit;

 

Detroit ( and Tokyo ) really hasn't got much to offer. Think thats a sales killer???

 

And since we know Ford, I just point to 2 vehicles in Ford's line up that really haven't been well done by from Ford recently. Even the '08 F350 is looking a bit warmed over with not much attempt at innovation. The CVPI doesn't know what innovation is... it so neglected. And yet, there you have it... no one has a better idea.

[ZanatWork]

Nope, fails the safety and economy criteria. Try running into an F350 with that and see if the

"test results" are worth the paper they're printed on. And the current actual MPG

figures make an F350 ( a 1 ton truck for F(!) sake ) look reasonable.

 

As for mini-vans . Neither practical, safe, reliable or economical.

The choice of people who can't read spec's.

 

This is a much tougher question than you guys realize...

 

 

I'd love to know what fantasy world you hail from that a D3 car isn't safe...if you hit anything less than a Brink's truck with an F350, it's at a disadvantage.

 

As for the mileage, I know you're smoking crack. Both D3 owners I know are getting mid-20's in mixed driving...compare that to an F350 that MAYBE will see 20 highway with the diesel and conservative gearing.

 

Can we invoke "really-real world ONLY" rules from here on?

 

D3 cars, past and present get my vote.

[RichardJensen]

As for a Honda anything moving that...

It would most certainly overcome the rolling resistance (once the vehicle was equipped with wheels), and you said nothing about performance.

 

You could also (since being hit by an 18 wheeler is apparently 1-a big concern for you and 2-something you see often) just go this route:

 

 

and fight fire with fire (so to speak).

 

Or buy one of these:

 

 

Or one of these:

 

 

Or, last, but not least, one of these:

 

 

If none of my responses are serious, it's because I don't think your question deserves to be taken seriously.

Edited February 21, 2007 by RichardJensen

[MKII]

Check IIHS numbers. Volvos used to be dead certain in the safety area.

I am told ( never owned one myself ) that other than the S80 ( and that

SUV ... XC90? ) Volvo is not quite as solid as they used to be. :shrug:

 

Just passing along what fairly level headed people are telling me.

 

Designing vehicles with Real World safety is Volvo's methodology and priority. Excelling in one particular nation's governmental or third party tests is not.

 

In third-party tests, such as the recent American IIHS Top Safety Pick Awards, or the NHSTA Crash Tests, vehicles are ranked based on the performance of front, side, and rear crashes. These rankings are based on results from one test vehicle, at one impact speed, and one angle of impact. While any form of testing can be a positive step, safety is a MUCH more complex subject than just one single crash test.

 

Volvo builds vehicles with safety systems developed from data contained in an Accident Research Database that dates back to the early 1970s. This database contains the intricate details of more than 35,000 collisions involving Volvo vehicles with more than 50,000 occupants.

http://www.volvocars.us/footer/about/NewsA...1458B268CC74%7D

 

Rest assured that this information is used to design our vehicles with safety systems to meet or exceed world class requirements. More importantly, it enables us to build vehicles that help protect occupants in many Real World situations, not just one specific crash.

 

Consider, for a moment, the following analogy for Volvo's holistic approach to safety:

 

A decathlon athlete must perform well in different 10 events to win first

prize. While that means they are not "world class" in one particular

category, it also means they are the BEST all-around athlete.

That is how Volvo views the field of safety. While each government and third party test will only address one type of impact, at one speed, in one event, Volvo considers the consequences of real world factors.

 

For example, if a vehicle is hit from the side, then pushed into a ditch, how well will it protect the occupants? Or how will a vehicle fair in a side impact followed by a rear collision? The vehicle should be able to help protect occupants in many different situations, not just one test into one barrier.

 

I'll take my chances in my Volvo, besides , IMO the V70 fits your "trick question"

Edited February 21, 2007 by MKII

[jpd80]

 

The EUCD2 from Europe should fulfill all your needs.

Note the special features penned by our North American styling expert.

[goingincirclez]

However, this whole thread is losing a critical issue here.

 

Too wit;

 

Detroit ( and Tokyo ) really hasn't got much to offer. Think thats a sales killer???

 

And since we know Ford, I just point to 2 vehicles in Ford's line up that really haven't been well done by from Ford recently. Even the '08 F350 is looking a bit warmed over with not much attempt at innovation. The CVPI doesn't know what innovation is... it so neglected. And yet, there you have it... no one has a better idea.

 

 

Alright, I call BS. Just what is your freakin' point here?

 

I mean, on the one hand, you've basically justified Ford's case for not updating the CV in like a glacial period.

 

And yet, you're going to complain that the "indestructible" F350 isn't getting any updates that seem worthwhile to you? But you said it was perfect!

 

So what's the point of this question? You can't have it both ways. Either: The vehicles are perfect as they are for your needs and paranoia levels (as you seem determined to argue), and there is no need to update or change them, because (once again by your own insistence) NOBODY ELSE offers something similar. Which means that Ford needn't invest too heavily in them, because what else are you gonna get....?

 

Or: Ford should get cracking on replacements / updates for them, just because.... in your words... "no one has a better idea"?

[g48150]

What about the recyclable car project, I don't remember the name of the project, it was in the Detroit News.

 

That's pretty good!

[Roadrunner]

That would not be economical. Now you have two car payments.

 

But in the original statements, money is no issue. Buy 'em straight off the lot.

[Roadrunner]

D3 cars, past and present get my vote.

 

Ditto - they are safe (with side airbags they got top crash ratings), economical (decent MPG), reliable (surprise) and they are practical as they can carry a lot of stuff.

[SysEng]

Ditto - they are safe (with side airbags they got top crash ratings), economical (decent MPG), reliable (surprise) and they are practical as they can carry a lot of stuff.

 

And the market said...pass...

 

For that matter, I said "pass" even before they were on the road.

D3 makes minivan drivers look like they can actually read

specs. Now that takes some work.

[SysEng]

So what's the point of this question? You can't have it both ways. Either: The vehicles are perfect as they are...

 

Or: Ford should get cracking on replacements / updates for them, just because.... in your words... "no one has a better idea"?

 

Neither. I'm using vehicles that are "upper quartile" packages as a benchmark and saying ...OK beat them!

 

At best, we're seeing Volvo drivers claiming some sort of "superiority" for their favorite cars,

even though I know for a fact that fairly level headed Volvo drivers are saying yes/no

to various offerings. I agree with the yes/no attitude on Volvo's.

And then we get D3 die hards flogging a loser even after

its clearly lost. Reminds me of the Lincoln LS promoters on this board :lol:

 

Y'all have such a fixation on MPG these days that you miss a key point. MPG

don't matter. Even Jensen there with his Kenworth isn't getting that a K-wopper

would not lose on the MPG question because even that could get 10MPG in some

cirumstances. A K-wopper might lose on other issues, but MPG isn't really a

deciding factor. Typically, you pay $2-3K per year for fuel. And going from a Corrola

to an F350 would only double that. Lose your MPG blinkers and see the

market as it really is.

 

The statement, that Ford shouldn't update something because... well they don't NEED too...

is bogus. There may not be any competition ( or at least less competition ), but we

know its bogus 'cuz the sales # say so...

[RichardJensen]

Even Jensen there with his Kenworth

That's a Peterbilt.

[old_fairmont_wagon]

But you're missing part of the point. Not many people out there can afford to just pour 2-3K down the drain per year. Over the 5 year long finance life that many cars see today, that adds an additional $10-$15K to the cost of the vehicle. That's a non-trivial amount. Another thing to look at is gas prices themselves. While currently they'r hovering at the bottom end of $2.00 a gallon, they've already proven in the past that they can easily hit $3 or more. So, while my father in law in his F-150 currently pays almost $60 a fill up, that could easily and very quickly be $90 a fillup, at 4 fillups a month and 12 fillups a year, that an additional $1440 of money spent on gas. Not everyone can afford a swing in their finances like that, especially the bottom 25% of wage earners, which makes up almost half our workforce.

 

But, the original question was the most efficient package that is safe and reliable. Minivans are that. The only caveat is towing as they can't tow much at all. You need to tow, then you're looking at a medium to large SUV or a crew cab pickup of some nature. And, efficiency is inversely proportional to the amount that you want to tow. Now, if you don't ever forsee the need to tote more than 5 people around at once, then a minivan is less desirable than a station wagon or hathback as that third row being able to seat humans is what the main draw is there. My suggestion at that point is to look around and pick the wagon you like the most. They're all ballpark for efficiency, save for the SRT-8 MAgnum.

[silvrsvt]

At best, we're seeing Volvo drivers claiming some sort of "superiority" for their favorite cars,

even though I know for a fact that fairly level headed Volvo drivers are saying yes/no

to various offerings. I agree with the yes/no attitude on Volvo's.

And then we get D3 die hards flogging a loser even after

its clearly lost. Reminds me of the Lincoln LS promoters on this board :lol:

 

Not as bad as the Panther supporters here :finger:

[ZanatWork]

And the market said...pass...

 

For that matter, I said "pass" even before they were on the road.

D3 makes minivan drivers look like they can actually read

specs. Now that takes some work.

 

The problem was , Ford DIDN'T say "PROMOTE AND ADVERTISE"...and thus the name-game. Ford reps have admitted to dropping that ball, move along.

 

I don't have to hate the Panthers to like the D3s (although after driving my friend's Five Hundred, the Crown Vic does feel a bit like the Flintstone-mobile)...but blaming any 2-ton car for not having the strudiness of a 3.5 ton truck is as good an example of delusion as I've seen.

[MKII]

Neither. I'm using vehicles that are "upper quartile" packages as a benchmark and saying ...OK beat them!

 

At best, we're seeing Volvo drivers claiming some sort of "superiority" for their favorite cars,

even though I know for a fact that fairly level headed Volvo drivers are saying yes/no

to various offerings. I agree with the yes/no attitude on Volvo's.

 

And I thought all Volvo owners were level headed. I'll have to check myself in and fix my un-level head.

BTW I do not claim that Volvo safety is superior, but you have to admit they sure do work hard at this, and make lots of

material available to state such efforts for public viewing.

[Noah Harbinger]

And the market said...pass...

 

For that matter, I said "pass" even before they were on the road.

D3 makes minivan drivers look like they can actually read

specs. Now that takes some work.

 

It's hilarious to see how sour people get about vehicles that do get built and updated instead of their pet vehicle. I guess it shouldn't surprise me that you also subscribe to the kind of superficial stereotypes that drove people out of minivans and into SUVs just to be "cool".

[falconman13]

And the market said...pass...

 

Your original question didnt say the vehicle had to be popular.

[ebritt]

Get a Hummer then

Yeah baby!!!

 

 

Oh you meant the truck.............well that works too...I suppose.

 

Edited February 22, 2007 by ebritt