Was I disappointed? Not a bit! Now we had plenty of room for the luggage and felt a whole lot more secure. I took it to the nearest rental agent who apologised that they could not supply another Mustang and gave us an SUV instead. Day three and the indicators stopped working. The gearbox worked well and the car did not seem too heavy on gas. Next day we cruised some byways with the roof down, a much more pleasant experience. With the roof up it was quieter but felt quite dark and claustrophobic. On the highway cruising at the 70 or 80mph speed limit with the roof down there was a lot of wind buffeting and noise which made that part of the journey tiring. 300 BHP or so gave reasonable, but not spectacular acceleration. As expected the car was a base model with a V6, not a V8 so no wonderful noises from the exhaust. Eventually we figured out how to lower the roof (undo two clips and press the button) but the engine has to be running. Where would the cooler go? It had to be the back seat. My first worry was the "or equivalent" but waiting for me at SLC was the silver mustang convertible. So for this trip I bit the Bullitt and reserved one. If my back and legs are going to ache, they might as well have something worth aching about.Ever since the famous chase through San Francisco with Steve McQueen I've regarded the Mustang as an icon. If I am going to be uncomfortable, I might as well have something fun to drive. If I am forced to go back to a conventional car, I’ll buy a Mazda Miata. I think the seating position and seats have made the SUVs popular. She drove about half the trip and was really impressed with the Escape.ĭifferent people have different tastes in comfort. My research partner is 5’ 2" tall and she also found the Ford Escape quite comfortable. I am 6’ 2" tall and have long legs and I was very comfortable. Of the vehicles that I have driven long distances to conferences from my institution’s fleet, I found the Ford Escape Hybrid the most comfortable for these trips. We still take our 2003 Toyota 4Runner on road trips because we find the seats and seating position comfortable. For long trips, we found the Aerostar much more comfortable and less tiring. We also had a 1990 Ford Aerostar minivan ( the Eddie Bauer edition) at the time. It had a power seat that adjusted in all directions and had practically every option Oldsmobile made available that year. My wife and I once owned a 1993 Oldsmobile 88. At any rate, when my dad finally did buy a new car a year later, he bought a Rambler Classic because it had comfortable seats. In 1959, GM had come out with a new, lower body style. My dad thought $3200 was way too much money for a 4 passenger car. The seats in the 1959 Buick were so hard in the center position, that car was, for all practical purposes, a 4 passenger car. He was going to buy a new car in 1959, but after we road tested a new 1959 Buick Invicta, we all agreed that the 1954 Buick was much more comfortable. My dad owned a 1954 Buick that he bought in 1955. The slow steering (no power assist), drum brakes, and the Dynaflow automatic transmission that depended entirely on the torque converter did not allow the 1952 Buick to be competitive with the 40 years younger models. CR reported that the 1952 Buick had the most comfortable and best seating positions, front and rear of the cars tested. CR also compared these cars with a 40 year old 1952 Buick Roadmaster that they found for the test. Back in 1992, Consumer Reports tested a 1992 Oldsmobile 88, a Mercury Grand Marquis, and a Buick Roadmaster. Now, traveling 30 mph over a rough road, a good SUV has little equal, while the Camry would be shaken to pieces. Mt 4Runner has a pretty good ride but compared to a good sedan, it just doesn’t cut it as far as it’s handling is concerned. There is nothing a shop can do to a wrangler to give it a good ride or handling and no Wrangler I have ever known did anything but stink on road. They have solid axles, high spring rates to keep them elevated and greater ground clearance. To me that implies that some may have good on road capabilities. Also, the poorer handling is tiring driving long distances with more wheel corrections. On highways at higher speeds, hitting pavement irregularities, the greater unstrung weight of the SUV s just don’t work as well. But, on back roads at lower speeds with unpaved roads, ruts, potholes and dips are all Swallowed up by the SUVs larger tires and greater wheel travel. I thought all the small ones have rode a little too stiff for me. Notice I did not say SUVs rode poorly at all, just worse then sedans. But, friends sedans in general rode and handled better. SUVs, all four of them now and in the past, all rode fine on the highway.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |