2009 Car and Driver 10 Best Cars - no Lexus, no surprise?

That is why I like my 1978 Dodge van and my 1983 Dodge van.Both of them
have the factory extended.long bodys on them, lots of room inside.I have
to step up before I can sit down.Compared to those new fangled vehicles
nowadays, my vans are easy to work on.Parts don't cost as much money
either.
cuhulin

PerfectReign wrote:
> N8N turned on the Etch-A-Sketch and wrote:
>
>>> Typical C&D mish-mash nonsense. If I had to guess, I'd say that they
>>> were trying to compile a list of cars that are "driver's cars" where the
>>> act and pleasure of driving counts for more than just getting from A to
>>> B reliably. But the presence of two Hondas and a VW blows that theory
>>> all to hell.
>> Have you *driven* a VW? They really are head and shoulders above
>> their competition, and have been since the introduction of the first
>> GTI.
>
> I was stuck in one for 12 years. ****ing tiny POS!
>
> I'd take a Toyota GS450 over one anyday.

Apples to oranges. I would submit that the newer VWs are too large for
my taste. VW's niche is making small cars that manage to not feel like
you didn't buy one because you're poor, but because you didn't want/need
a larger car. A Lexus GS would be better compared to, say, a Pontiac G8
or a BMW 5-series than any VW (save maybe the Phaeton, but that IMHO was
a mistake and a waste of time/money.)

nate

--
replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.
http://members.cox.net/njnagel

PerfectReign wrote:
> Ad absurdum per aspera turned on the Etch-A-Sketch and wrote:
>
>>> Of course that *should* also rule out econoboxes like Fit and Accord.
>> Don't look now, but the Accord is EPA classified as a "large" car, and
>> with the V6 (three liters and 270 horsepower!) it can be a pretty
>> quick one too.
>
> Who, exactly pays off the EPA to define these? I drove a Maxima for several
> years. I cannot believe people put that subcompact as a "midsize."

Um, a Maxima *is* a midsize car. It's practically cavernous inside. Do
you call a Peterbilt a "light truck?" A Fit is a subcompact. A Maxima
is most certainly not.

I'd hate to hear your opinion of a Lotus Elise, but whatever it is it
won't make me lust after one any less.

nate

--
replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.
http://members.cox.net/njnagel

Nate Nagel turned on the Etch-A-Sketch and wrote:

> PerfectReign wrote:
>> Ad absurdum per aspera turned on the Etch-A-Sketch and wrote:
>>
>>>> Of course that *should* also rule out econoboxes like Fit and Accord.
>>> Don't look now, but the Accord is EPA classified as a "large" car, and
>>> with the V6 (three liters and 270 horsepower!) Â* it can be a pretty
>>> quick one too.
>>
>> Who, exactly pays off the EPA to define these? I drove a Maxima for
>> several years. I cannot believe people put that subcompact as a
>> "midsize."
>
> Um, a Maxima *is* a midsize car.

Not unless they make them way bigger than our '98 was. I ****ing hit my head
on the roof more times than I care to remember. Also, even with the seat
all the way back, my knees would be uncomfortably hitting the center
console while trying to avoid the steering wheel.

> It's practically cavernous inside.

You a midgit?

> Do
> you call a Peterbilt a "light truck?"


No - my Avalanche is a light truck.

> A Fit is a subcompact. Â*A Maxima
> is most certainly not.
>
> I'd hate to hear your opinion of a Lotus Elise, but whatever it is it
> won't make me lust after one any less.

--
www.perfectreign.com || www.filesite.org

Clean out a corner of your mind and creativity will instantly fill it. - Dee
Hock

Elmo P. Shagnasty wrote:
> In article
> >,
> N8N > wrote:
>
>> Have you *driven* a VW?
>
> Yep. Owned one.
>
> And after that, I wouldn't buy a German car with YOUR money. (Been
> there, done that.)
>
> And yes, I "get" German cars. German cars are the expensive, pouty, and
> high-maintenance mistresses of the road. Damn, they are a fine, fine
> ride...
>
> ....but then the maintenance and pouting kicks in.
>
> At some point, without unlimited funds, you are at a decision point:
> continue the high-priced, high-maintenance fun, or go back home and
> enjoy your reliable Lexus wife of a car, patiently sitting there waiting
> for you to get over the midlife crisis.
>
> Oh sure, she's not as sexy as the German car, and she doesn't handle at
> the edge like the German car. She's also not as fickle and high
> maintenance and pouty, and she agrees with you much more of the time.
> She's always there and never complains, and you come to realize there's
> more to life than a high-maintenance relationship with a pouty,
> high-maintenance woman--no matter how sexy she is or how fun the nights
> out with her can be. Because when she lets you down and demands more of
> you than you have to give, and treats you like dirt, you're standing
> there all alone outside the club, looking and feeling like an idiot.
>
> Your Lexus wife would never, ever do that to you.
>
> And the occasional fun night out isn't worth what you end up paying for
> it, both financially and in time wasted while you wait for the German
> car mistress to be in the mood to play.

I don't get it. I drove cheap beater VWs for years and other than a
Corrado or Passat (of which I've owned neither, although SWMBO had a
Corrado) they seem to be the Dodge Dart of German cars, albeit a little
more fun to drive (unless you managed to find a Dart with a 340 and HD
suspension) Parts for 80's WCVWs are for the most part pretty
reasonably priced as well and working on them yourself is not all that
challenging, once you get a couple special tools (notably a cutaway
socket for the strut nuts, a set of triple squares, and a few other
minor things.) I had four different VWs and my mom another, as well as
several friends who also had various models, so it's a little hard to
say "I got lucky with my car, most of them aren't like that." The only
reason I don't have one today is the lack of good junkyards in my area,
nor did the parts stores stock anything for them - everything had to be
mail ordered; the VWs I like are all either still on the road or have
all been crushed a decade ago. I could easily be tempted by, say, an
'81 Scirocco S however.

Now if you insist on an automatic transmixer, yeah, those are not the
most reliable. Automatics are not a strong point of really any German car.

Now your characterization might better apply to something like a
Porsche, but I ran the cost/benefit analysis and went ahead and bought
an old 944 anyway. And, really, if you just plan for a couple grand
worth of maintenance/minor repairs a year, it'll serve you well and
you'll be much happier than you would in, say, a contemporary Celebrity
and your cost of operation still won't come close to approaching a new
car payment.

nate

--
replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.
http://members.cox.net/njnagel

Ad absurdum per aspera wrote:
>> Of course that *should* also rule out econoboxes like Fit and Accord.
>
> Don't look now, but the Accord is EPA classified as a "large" car, and
> with the V6 (three liters and 270 horsepower!) it can be a pretty
> quick one too.
>
> Getting back to the Ten Best list, though: I know (as if there were
> ever much doubt) that if I throw enough money at the problem I can get
> a truly fine automobile. One of the things the magazines can do is go
> through the lesser ranks of cars, kissing all the frogs so they can
> tell you which one is the prince. That used to be a goal of the ten
> best list (and still is of their occasional category comparos).
>
> Conversely, putting an M3, Corvette, etc. on the same list with a Fit
> or even an Accord makes you wonder about the purpose of the list.
> Best in each of several classes, maybe? They certainly don't compete
> with each other even vaguely...
>
> --Joe
>

C&D for a couple years added a category to their 10 Best list for each
car, but it's always been - these cars are the cars that we think are
THE BEST. Pretty much about the only rule is that it's average new car
price x 2.5 or so, ruling out Ferraris and whatnot because any car
that's 10x the average price of a car SHOULD be awesome.

It's their list, they can make up the rules however they want.

Ray

My March 2009 snail mail Popular Mechanics magazine showed up here this
morning.There is an article in there about the Toyota iQ 55 MPG car.That
little bitty car looks like it was made for midgets.(meaning no
disrespect to midget people) I don't think I could even fit inside of
that car.
cuhulin

N8N wrote:
\
> Have you *driven* a VW? They really are head and shoulders above
> their competition, and have been since the introduction of the first
> GTI.

Well, I drove the first GTI, which is why I haven't driven one since. I
like keeping my fillings *in* my teeth when I start the engine....

Yes, I know modern VWs are a far cry from a Wabbit GTI, but I still have
never been able to get the "VW = crap" association washed out of my brain.

On Feb 2, 2:33*pm, Steve > wrote:
> N8N wrote:
>
> \
>
> > Have you *driven* a VW? *They really are head and shoulders above
> > their competition, and have been since the introduction of the first
> > GTI.
>
> Well, I drove the first GTI, which is why I haven't driven one since. I
> like keeping my fillings *in* my teeth when I start the engine....
>
> Yes, I know modern VWs are a far cry from a Wabbit GTI, but I still have
> never been able to get the "VW = crap" association washed out of my brain.

Diff'rent strokes, I guess, the one car that I've owned and sold that
I regret selling to this day was an '84 Scirocco. I had a Wabbit GTI
as well, and the only reason the 'roccet gets the nod was that the
Scirocco was German built while the Wabbit was Westmoreland built, and
therefore had a more attractive dash and interior. Other than that
they're pretty much the same car, and I'm an idiot for selling the
'roccet

nate

> > Um, a Maxima *is* a midsize car.
> Not unless they make them way bigger than our '98 was.

They do, at least for some values of "way". (And sometimes
"weigh.")

Most models tend to expand over the years, sometimes for the better.
New models and sometimes whole new brands are then introduced to take
their place at the bottom.

The Accord that were were talking about it, in its eighth generation,
some thirty inches longer ("and everything in proportion") than the
first one. The size classes assigned by the EPA are defined in terms
of passenger and cargo volume (http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/
info.shtml#sizeclasses). Admittedly it is toward the bottom of what's
considered a large car by the EPA, but it is in that category. (The
slightly smaller coupe is still considered midsize.)

The current and immediately past Maximas are slightly but noticeably
bigger than your fourth-generation 1998 was -- two or three inches in
every dimension as well as rather less of a "three box" shape -- and
I think they're considered midsize cars butting their heads against
the "large" threshold.

Design makes a big difference too, in both the perception and the
usability of the space, and usually though not always this improves
over the years.

I personally think the "large" category is too broad and
undifferentiated, but the cars in it are hardly what I'd consider
"econoboxes" either.

Cheers,
--Joe