OMG! Another what car thread!!!!
I am about a year out and like always I have one loaded in the chamber when the time comes.
I am tired of squeezing into little cars. I am 6'5" soon to be 42 and an engineer. Time to act like it.
I want to be comfortable. Heated seats and an (GASP!!!)auto shifting transmission are a must (SWMBO hath spoken!)
I am 6'5", SWBO is 5'11", the 12-year-old is 6' and the 9-year-old is average (I think he was switched at the hospital).
I would LOVE something with sporting potential but I am not gonna sacrifice reliability and comfort for it.
So about $10k (I can go up to $17k but prefer less) and less than 100k miles and less than or equal too 7 years is the limits. Low maintenance is plus too.
The ideal car would be a Lexus LS wagon...that doesn't exist.
(Nice photchop isn't it? Not mine)
CTS wagon is too small, E class wagon too expensive, Thought about a Volvo wagon need to try on for size and those seats, ohhhh those seats. TSX wagon too small, Accord wagon is gone, Accord Crosstour is a maybe. 5 Series wagon is a maybe (concerned with maintenance).
The punt option is a nice used Lexus LS because old people don't drive and they push all the buttons but wagon.
So what say you GRM?
Mercedes AMG powered R-class? eh? eh?
I think you misspelled Suburban 
Ford Flex. Yeah, it ain't pretty in the aero dept., don't know what it does for power, but I watch a 6'6" colleague emerge painlessly from one each and every morning.
It's older than your target range, but the 1994 thru 1996 Buick Roadmaster Estate Wagons fits the bill. Bonus these years come standard with the 275hp LT1 engine.
You can get the nicest one in the country for less than 6,000, and then add the other 4,000 into per-emptively fixing anything you might feel needs maintenance.
I REALLY love my 1995 White Whale:
You find REALLY nice examples in the 3,000 range here, or look further south.
oldrotarydriver wrote:
Ford Flex. Yeah, it ain't pretty in the aero dept., don't know what it does for power, but I watch a 6'6" colleague emerge painlessly from one each and every morning.
^^^^this
If you want something wagonish, it's an SUV. Big wagons are dead.
If you could accept a sedan, there are much more options, like:
2007+ Volvo S80 V8
2nd gen Charger or Chrysler 300
Taurus SHO
fanfoy wrote:
oldrotarydriver wrote:
Ford Flex. Yeah, it ain't pretty in the aero dept., don't know what it does for power, but I watch a 6'6" colleague emerge painlessly from one each and every morning.
^^^^this
If you want something wagonish, it's an SUV. Big wagons are dead.
If you could accept a sedan, there are much more options, like:
2007+ Volvo S80 V8
2nd gen Charger or Chrysler 300
Taurus SHO
S80 V8....hummmmm. We do have a Volvo dealership in town. Need to check out how friendly they are.
The new Taurus is a no go. I don't know how but Ford made that thing big on the outside and tiny on the inside. Opposite of the Tardis.
I do not want a truck, I do not want a van, I do not want a real SUV though Tall I am.
I like my gas milegage, I like it very much. So you can shove your cab on frame designs way up up up.
I've been put in this same dilemma for awhile now, I'm just too damn picky. And cheap. Horrible combination.
The V70 is probably the safest bet (and car!) out of the choices of wagons to choose from. I'm just not a huge fan of the interior of them but I've yet to test drive one. I'd say if possible get a T5 at a minimum and 06+ for a V70R?
The CTS wagon isn't horrible looking, but at least in my area, are overpriced and the 3.6 is also meh.
The E39/E61 are my faves, but reliability be damned. Plus being stuck strictly with AWD in the E61 is a bummer. Have heard the N52 in the E61 is considered to be the more 'reliable' of Bimmer motors, but YMMV. Electric water pump FTL. Test drove a '07 530XI and it honestly wasn't bad. Had more than enough oomph with more than enough space.
Never been a fan of the Crosstour.
The Audi/VW wagons are too 'bubbly' for me, personally.
For a sedan, there's always a G8 GT. Pretty spacious on the inside. But for the money, you could probably buy a few different LS400s and just swap them out every week.
My first thought is the Dodge Magnum, but it was only produced until 2008.
What about an infinity g37 or Q50?
In reply to MrChaos:
G37 is too small. Is the Q50 a G37 with that stupid new naming convention Infiniti came out with?
In reply to FlightService:
Yes the Q50 is the new g37 but now with a 3 liter twin turbo v6
Lincoln Town car or other luxury panther platform car
I see a ton of Outbacks in that price range...any reason why those aren't on the list? Too small?
Current generation Honda Accord. I sat in every sedan at NAIAS and either it or the Audi A8 had the most legroom.
How soon till we can safely import Nissan Stageas?
szeis4cookie wrote:
I see a ton of Outbacks in that price range...any reason why those aren't on the list? Too small?
Outbacks would be on the list but we did a Forester and a Legacy Wagon (Outback without the lift kit) SWBO loathed both of them and honestly they weren't that reliable. Between the two of them 3 blown axles, 1 engine, leaking rear main, leaking transmission and a Right Rear Wheel Bearing going out. Not to mention the fuel economy is sub-par.
I love the idea of the Outback on paper, and it pushes all the right buttons, but unless something has drastically changed, Subbie will be on my no-go list for a while.
Robbie wrote:
Mercedes AMG powered R-class? eh? eh?
I find your humor sick and twisted.
I like that.
FlightService wrote:
I do not want a truck, I do not want a van, I do not want a real SUV though Tall I am.
I like my gas milegage, I like it very much. So you can shove your cab on frame designs way up up up.
Discount the Body-on-Frame stuff at your own peril. Just an FYI, A Tahoe and Lexus LS of similar year might be closer in fuel economy numbers than you'd think. I'd bet if you dropped the SUV an inch or 2 (off the shelf PPV suspension?) to help with handling, it would get the fuel economy numbers even closer.
Ninjy edit: The Lexus requires premium fuel too, which the big GM doesn't, so that extra cost would need to be considered as well, and probably tips the $/mile metric in favor of the body-on frame SUV.
Flex is available in your year/mileage range with SHO drivetrain
Ouch, can't blame you there then. OK, looks like you could get a Lexus GS450h in that price range - I think Vigo has one and quite likes it.
Another thought is the Explorer. It is within an inch of the Flex in almost every dimension.
As far as body on frame...I live in the DC metro area. The Flex/Explorer would be pushing it. Tahoe/Suburban/Expedition/Sequoia/Armada are all off the list.
I would really mash the easy button and say Odyssey Limited but the wife isn't fond of the mini-van although she is waivering. I have a year.
Keep'em coming.
FlightService wrote:
Another thought is the Explorer. It is within an inch of the Flex in almost every dimension.
Except interior volume. My hip shot would be the flex is bigger inside by cubic feet. Maybe tens of cubic feet.
In reply to Robbie:
Flex Left Explorer Right
Front head room
41.8 in. 41.4 in.
Front hip room
55.5 in. 57.3 in.
Front leg room
40.8 in. 42.9 in.
Front shoulder room
58.4 in. 61.5 in.
Rear hip Room
55.0 in. 56.8 in
Rear head room
40.5 in. 40.6 in.
Rear leg room
44.3 in. 39.5 in
Rear shoulder room
58.1 in. 61.0 in.
Width
75.9 in. 78.9 in.
Height
69.3 in. 70.0 in.
Length
201.8 in. 198.3 in.
Wheel base
117.9 in. 112.8 in.
Cargo capacity, all seats in place
20.0 cu.ft. 21.0 cu.ft.
Maximum cargo capacity
83.2 cu.ft. 81.7 cu.ft.
Maximum towing capacity
4500 lbs. 5000 lbs.
EPA interior volume
175.8 cu.ft. 171.3 cu.ft.
Curb weight
4439 lbs. 4443 lbs.
The rear leg room of the Flex gives it an advantage. The idea of finding PP parts for the Explorer brings it back in line...
Special Service Explorer for the win!
Well I was right but NOT BY MUCH!! Surprising!
