Vehicle Question

ML

HardwareLust wrote:
> This might be a slightly strange request, but I'm in the market for a used
> car/truck/SUV, and considering my two primary uses are driving to work, and
> driving to rides or races, I'm wondering what would be a good choice for
> carrying bicycles and passengers?
>
> I'm currently driving a Miata, while a wonderful car, but isn't the most
> useful of vehicles, especially for carrying bicycles around. Quite often
> there's three or four of us that go, and I can obviously only carry two.
>
> Any specific recommendations as to an appropriate vehicle that would make
> carrying multiple bicycles easy? Van? Station wagon? I realize a full
> size van, SUV, or truck would probably be the best convenience-wise, but I'm
> not keen on buying some big road hog with poor gas mileage. But, it would
> be nice to have the ability to carry bikes inside the vehicle, and still
> have room for 3 or 4.
>
> Just looking for ideas.
>
> Thanks,
> H.
>
>

Hardware Lust:

Dodge Caravan with the rear bench seat removed. Put some Bike Tights
onto a board and you're all set. You can carry a tandem in the short
wheelbase version but to do it right you'll need the long wheelbase van.
If all you carry are singles the short wheelbase version is fine. Get
the captains chairs for the second row also. I kept the left captains
chair in so that I could carry 3 people. That left enough room for the
tandem & 2 singles.

MOO,
Matt

Werehatrack

On Wed, 21 Apr 2004 10:30:48 GMT, B a r r y
<Keep_it_in_the_newsgroup_please@aol.com> may have said:

>On Wed, 21 Apr 2004 02:06:21 GMT, "Matt O'Toole" <matt@deltanet.com>
>wrote:
>
>
>>Everyone seems to agree on this, but believe it or not, it sells very well --
>>leaving many industry types scratching their heads.
>
>
>That's not what I read. I remember an article where it was stated
>that GM was giving massive incentives to employees to buy these
>things, to help unload a large inventory buildup. Maybe they sell
>well locally to you?

Further evidence of unpublished sales incentives is easy to get. Just
go shopping for an SUV at a Pontiac dealer. I was talking to someone
at a convention recently who has an Aztek; he'd gone into the
dealership to look at other models, and the salesman kept nudging him
toward the Aztek hinting of really deep discounts. He smelled a
bargain, so he worked the salesman down to $6800 under factory sticker
on a cash deal for a unit that wasn't overloaded with features. A few
weeks later, he found out that someone with whom he works had haggled
a different dealer down even farther. Neither of these were demos.

Unfortunately, the sloping rear roof does wierd things to the cargo
area. And it really is the most butt-ugly thing out of Detroit in a
very long time.

--
My email address is antispammed; pull WEEDS if replying via e-mail.
Typoes are not a bug, they're a feature.
Words processed in a facility that contains nuts.

G.T.

"Werehatrack" <rault00@earthWEEDSlink.net> wrote in message
news:fq5d80p9bl9p7c7k1rose2ci7f5pkh0oev@4ax.com...
>
> Further evidence of unpublished sales incentives is easy to get. Just
> go shopping for an SUV at a Pontiac dealer. I was talking to someone
> at a convention recently who has an Aztek; he'd gone into the
> dealership to look at other models, and the salesman kept nudging him
> toward the Aztek hinting of really deep discounts. He smelled a
> bargain, so he worked the salesman down to $6800 under factory sticker
> on a cash deal for a unit that wasn't overloaded with features. A few
> weeks later, he found out that someone with whom he works had haggled
> a different dealer down even farther. Neither of these were demos.
>
> Unfortunately, the sloping rear roof does wierd things to the cargo
> area. And it really is the most butt-ugly thing out of Detroit in a
> very long time.

Yep, GM has the worst designers on the planet. Top 3 ugliest motor vehicles
of the last decade, Aztek, Avalanche, and any Cadillac.

Greg

dvt

HardwareLust wrote:
> Minivans also have the benefit of being extremely cheap, as they have
> virtually no resale value due to the SUV boom.

That may be true of domestics, but a used import minivan costs nearly as
much as a new one in these parts. Don't ask me how I know this.

--
Dave
dvt at psu dot edu

HardwareLust

dvt wrote:
> HardwareLust wrote:
>> Minivans also have the benefit of being extremely cheap, as they have
>> virtually no resale value due to the SUV boom.
>
> That may be true of domestics, but a used import minivan costs nearly
> as much as a new one in these parts. Don't ask me how I know this.

I would agree with that. I think the OP was referring to a Chrysler T&C. I
am drooling over the new Nissan minivan, but it'll be years before I can
afford such a swank vehicle. :-)

One exception to this would be the Volkswagen Eurovan, I think. They seem
to have fairly low resale values.

Ryan Cousineau

In article <jYwhc.39423$Io6.12114@newssvr29.news.prodigy.com>,
"G.T." <getnews1@dslextreme.com> wrote:

> "Werehatrack" <rault00@earthWEEDSlink.net> wrote in message
> news:fq5d80p9bl9p7c7k1rose2ci7f5pkh0oev@4ax.com...

[Pontiac Aztek, super cheap]

> > Unfortunately, the sloping rear roof does wierd things to the cargo
> > area. And it really is the most butt-ugly thing out of Detroit in a
> > very long time.

Oh yeah. Full glory:

http://www.pontiac.com/aztek/galler...ame=models_pric
es&Location=HNav

That's some pictures of the current model, which unbelievably, is not
quite as awful-looking as the original.

> Yep, GM has the worst designers on the planet. Top 3 ugliest motor vehicles
> of the last decade, Aztek, Avalanche, and any Cadillac.

I have to disagree. The Aztek is an easy winner, but the Avalanche is
not even in the same category (I find its looks reasonable, and the
concept clever):

http://www.chevrolet.com/avalanche/gallery.htm

And as for the Cadillacs, I understand that the "Art & Science" design
theory is not for everyone, but the newest cars from them are very, very
interesting.

The Seville, alas, is not quite as tidy as the original super-crisp
version:

http://www.cadillac.com/cadillacjsp...el=seville&sect
ion=colorExt

But the CTS is a very clever, very nice car. It looks even better in
person than in pictures:

http://www.cadillac.com/cadillacjsp...el=cts&section=
colorExt#

I attribute some of this to the fact that these seem to be fairly
low-angle shots (for drama! And excitement!) which do not flatter the
car as much as more normal views. Picture #5 in the above link is more
like it.

Who is doing some really bad design? I'm still dubious about the
Chrysler 300 (nice car, clunky styling), and I think that while Ford has
done some very neat things with their retro Mustang, that plumbing their
back catalog for styling is something that can't last long.

But the single worst designer of cars available to Americans is probably
Chris Bangle. Behold the BMW Z4:

http://www.bmw.com/generic/com/en/p...wroom/z4/z4/ind
ex.html

Note how the going-everywhere sheet metal creases cleverly conspire to
make a convertible two-seater look like complete crap. Compare and
contrast to the really pretty Z3 to see what the Z4 could have looked
like if BMW had done nothing at all.

Even the new 6-series isn't safe. Blandly acceptable from the front, but
its rear suffers from acute Bangleosis:

http://www.bmw.com/generic/com/en/p...wroom/6series/c
onvertible/index.html

The 5 and 7 series sedans are much less awful, mainly because putting a
stupid-looking trunk on them isn't quite as painful, and it looks like
they let someone else style the sides. I have gotten used to the
slightly odd headlights, too.

The 3 series, especially the full-on M3 Coupe, are quite nice cars.

Oh, and the X3? It thanks the Aztek every morning for making the X3 look
normal.

ObBike: Van Dessel. What are they doing? They used to make a beautiful
curved-tube road machine that was my dream ride, and hang any weight
penalties.

Now that frame is only available on their "Super Fly" moustache-barred
city bike. With a disc brake. Their current road bikes have bland
frames: http://vandesselsports.com

So I'm back to being in love with the Cervélo Soloist and the demented
P3: http://cervelo.com/bikes/SLTeam.html

No, really I just love the old Pinarello, honest,

--
Ryan Cousineau, rcousine@sfu.ca http://www.sfu.ca/~rcousine/wiredcola/
President, Fabrizio Mazzoleni Fan Club

G.T.

Ryan Cousineau wrote:
>
>
> I have to disagree. The Aztek is an easy winner, but the Avalanche is
> not even in the same category (I find its looks reasonable, and the
> concept clever):
>
> http://www.chevrolet.com/avalanche/gallery.htm

Incredibly boxy and very cheap looking to me.

>
> And as for the Cadillacs, I understand that the "Art & Science" design
> theory is not for everyone, but the newest cars from them are very, very
> interesting.
>
> The Seville, alas, is not quite as tidy as the original super-crisp
> version:
>
> http://www.cadillac.com/cadillacjsp...el=seville&sect
> ion=colorExt
>

So freakin' generic looking. Blech. If I was to buy a luxury car it
wouldn't be a Cadillac.

> But the CTS is a very clever, very nice car. It looks even better in
> person than in pictures:
>
> http://www.cadillac.com/cadillacjsp...el=cts&section=
> colorExt#

I'm warming up to them but I still think they are plasticy looking and too
angular and boxy.


>
> Who is doing some really bad design? I'm still dubious about the
> Chrysler 300 (nice car, clunky styling),

I'm still undecided, I think clunky is nice for entry level cars but not
for a flagship model.

> and I think that while Ford has
> done some very neat things with their retro Mustang,

Really disappointing.

>
> But the single worst designer of cars available to Americans is probably
> Chris Bangle. Behold the BMW Z4:
>
> http://www.bmw.com/generic/com/en/p...wroom/z4/z4/ind
> ex.html
>
> Note how the going-everywhere sheet metal creases cleverly conspire to
> make a convertible two-seater look like complete crap. Compare and
> contrast to the really pretty Z3 to see what the Z4 could have looked
> like if BMW had done nothing at all.
>
> Even the new 6-series isn't safe. Blandly acceptable from the front, but
> its rear suffers from acute Bangleosis:
>
> http://www.bmw.com/generic/com/en/p...wroom/6series/c
> onvertible/index.html
>
> The 5 and 7 series sedans are much less awful, mainly because putting a
> stupid-looking trunk on them isn't quite as painful, and it looks like
> they let someone else style the sides. I have gotten used to the
> slightly odd headlights, too.

Agreed.

>
> The 3 series, especially the full-on M3 Coupe, are quite nice cars.
>
> Oh, and the X3? It thanks the Aztek every morning for making the X3 look
> normal.

A co-worker just bought one, I'll take it over an Aztek.

I think GM is improving, while Ford and Toyota are getting worse, and the
rest are staying the same.

>
> ObBike: Van Dessel. What are they doing?

I don't know, I can't stand curving top and downtubes. But I do like
curved chain and seatstays.

Greg

ML

G.T. wrote:
> "Werehatrack" <rault00@earthWEEDSlink.net> wrote in message
> news:fq5d80p9bl9p7c7k1rose2ci7f5pkh0oev@4ax.com...
>
>>Further evidence of unpublished sales incentives is easy to get. Just
>>go shopping for an SUV at a Pontiac dealer. I was talking to someone
>>at a convention recently who has an Aztek; he'd gone into the
>>dealership to look at other models, and the salesman kept nudging him
>>toward the Aztek hinting of really deep discounts. He smelled a
>>bargain, so he worked the salesman down to $6800 under factory sticker
>>on a cash deal for a unit that wasn't overloaded with features. A few
>>weeks later, he found out that someone with whom he works had haggled
>>a different dealer down even farther. Neither of these were demos.
>>
>>Unfortunately, the sloping rear roof does wierd things to the cargo
>>area. And it really is the most butt-ugly thing out of Detroit in a
>>very long time.
>
>
> Yep, GM has the worst designers on the planet. Top 3 ugliest motor vehicles
> of the last decade, Aztek, Avalanche, and any Cadillac.
>
> Greg
>
>

Wait, you forgot the Buick Riviera of a few years ago. Looked like a
flattened meatloaf.

MOO,
Matt

dvt

Ryan Cousineau wrote:

>>Yep, GM has the worst designers on the planet. Top 3 ugliest motor vehicles
>>of the last decade, Aztek, Avalanche, and any Cadillac.

> And as for the Cadillacs, I understand that the "Art & Science" design
> theory is not for everyone, but the newest cars from them are very, very
> interesting.

You want ugly? I'll give you ugly. These look much worse in real life
than any picture can do justice:

http://www.cadillac.com/cadillacjsp...?model=escalade

--
Dave
dvt at psu dot edu

dvt

HardwareLust wrote:
> I would agree with that. I think the OP was referring to a Chrysler T&C. I
> am drooling over the new Nissan minivan, but it'll be years before I can
> afford such a swank vehicle. :-)

The Nissan underwent significant changes for 2004, so the prior models
may be slightly cheaper. The new one is quite a bit larger.

For a low-price minivan, you might try the Mazda MPV. It's slightly
smaller than the new Nissan or any recent Honda. It also has a little
less power (200 HP vs 220, I think). And I don't think you'll fit 4
people and 4 bikes *inside* the vehicle. Maybe 4 people plus 2-3 bikes
would fit. But it is thousands of US$ less expensive, at least around here.

--
Dave
dvt at psu dot edu

Paul Southworth

In article <c68sio$s2g$1@f04n12.cac.psu.edu>, dvt <dvt_spam@psu.edu> wrote:
>Ryan Cousineau wrote:
>
>>>Yep, GM has the worst designers on the planet. Top 3 ugliest motor vehicles
>>>of the last decade, Aztek, Avalanche, and any Cadillac.
>
>> And as for the Cadillacs, I understand that the "Art & Science" design
>> theory is not for everyone, but the newest cars from them are very, very
>> interesting.
>
>You want ugly? I'll give you ugly. These look much worse in real life
>than any picture can do justice:
>
>http://www.cadillac.com/cadillacjsp...?model=escalade

Yeah but the EXT is the real babboon's ass, it "blows" the Escalade
away in my humble opinion.

HardwareLust

dvt wrote:
> The Nissan underwent significant changes for 2004, so the prior models
> may be slightly cheaper. The new one is quite a bit larger.

Yes, indeed. That's the one. I think that's about the best looking minivan
I've ever seen. Some friends of ours just bought the new Maxima, and if the
van is anything like the new Maxima, it's going to be quite a vehicle.

> For a low-price minivan, you might try the Mazda MPV. It's slightly
> smaller than the new Nissan or any recent Honda. It also has a little
> less power (200 HP vs 220, I think). And I don't think you'll fit 4
> people and 4 bikes *inside* the vehicle. Maybe 4 people plus 2-3 bikes
> would fit. But it is thousands of US$ less expensive, at least around
> here.

Yeah, I'm beginning to think 4 bikes + 4 adults inside is just too much to
hope for without buying a Suburban or something similar sized, which is
exactly what I want to get away from. I'm starting to think a station wagon
of some sort would be better in the end...lower roof height = easier putting
bikes on top.

I'm surprised no one other than me has mentioned the VW Eurovan. It used to
be in the "old days" when my older brother was a roadie (back in the day
with toeclips and sew-up's and posters of Eddy in the garage) that the VW
van was pretty much the standard vehicle for lots of starving roadie's and
hippies. I guess things have changed. I was thinking one of those
Eurovan's with pop-top (not the camper, just the poptop...called a
"weekender" I believe) might work pretty well. It'd be nice to be able to
park, pop the top and have standing room to change clothes and such.