Station Wagons

On 2/4/2010 9:37 PM, Tim Wescott wrote:
> On Thu, 04 Feb 2010 23:20:44 -0600, cuhulin wrote:
>
>> compared to SUVs.
>> http://www.stationwagon.com/history.html
>>
>> 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
>
> Station wagons look better, and for the weight of the vehicle will hold a
> much larger model sailplane (keep your priorities straight).

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?

>
> 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.
>

On Feb 5, 7:46*am, wrote:
> If you are sitting up higher, you can look down on the peons.Maybe that
> is why those soccer moms like SUVs?
> cuhulin

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

Don Stauffer wrote:
>
> wrote:
> > compared to SUVs.
> > http://www.stationwagon.com/history.html
> >
> > 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
> >
> My understanding is that most SUVs sit higher for greater ground
> clearance (allows you to drive over rocks and boulders and stuff).

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.

> This
> raises CG and affects handling and rollover.

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.

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

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.

>
> 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.

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

hls wrote:
>
> > wrote in message
> ...
> > If you are sitting up higher, you can look down on the peons.Maybe that
> > is why those soccer moms like SUVs?
> > cuhulin
>
> I think the SUVs were marketed to the soccer mom mentality, who thought
> they were buying smartness and safety.

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.

On Fri, 5 Feb 2010 14:03:44 -0800 (PST), ben91932
> wrote:

>On Feb 5, 7:46Â*am, wrote:
>> If you are sitting up higher, you can look down on the peons.Maybe that
>> is why those soccer moms like SUVs?
>> cuhulin
>
>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

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

N8N wrote:



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


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.
<G>


--
Steve Walker
(remove wallet to reply)

> Are station wagons being made today?

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

> he couldn't imagine that anyone would rather
> drive RWD than FWD in the snow

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.)


> Dunlop Winter Sports on the 944 while the Impala has
> Goodyear POS all-season tires.

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...


> 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. *

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

Be careful out there,
--Joe

Steve Walker wrote:
> N8N wrote:
>
>
>
> 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
>
>
> 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.
> <G>
>
>
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.

--
aem sends...

On Feb 5, 11:10*pm, Ad absurdum per aspera > wrote:
> > he couldn't imagine that anyone would rather
> > drive RWD than FWD in the snow
>
> I wonder how many people would genuinely think that your F-150 *is a
> "safer" vehicle than your 944, especially in the snow.

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.

> (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.)

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