R5
(Banned)
- 7,527
- Location, Location
But they'll have the same same problems as the aforementioned crossover/SUVs.There are 7 seat wagons.
WHY would you choose a SUV with a cramped 3rd row when you could get a more spacious minivan?
But they'll have the same same problems as the aforementioned crossover/SUVs.There are 7 seat wagons.
WHY would you choose a SUV with a cramped 3rd row when you could get a more spacious minivan?
The XJ-S is an awesome car bro... One of the most historic cars in Australian motorsport history is a Jaguar XJ-S owned by Tom Walkinshaw... Won Bathurst in 1985, steered by Jon Goss and Armin Hahne.XJ-S is awesome (maybe this is unpopular?).
And unlike minivans, there isn't much that a modern wagon does particularly better than a modern crossover.But they'll have the same same problems as the aforementioned crossover/SUVs.
Weren't they also susceptible to rust like many other old British cars?I've liked the ones I was able to drive. There's a few good reasons I don't own one of course. Main reason being the awful electronics.
Which I'd argue are far more impressive because some skill is required to get a halfway decent launch.At least not one of those standing starts.
Lamborghini is a manufacturer made by posers, used by posers. I don't care what Lamborghini it is, apart from the very obvious exception
Lamborghini is a manufacturer made by posers, used by posers. I don't care what Lamborghini it is, apart from the very obvious exception
Which makes for quite a good unpopular opinion: I think crossovers are generally pretty decent. Not many I'd own myself, but I can't subscribe to the Jalopnik-esque desire to have wagon versions of everything.And unlike minivans, there isn't much that a modern wagon does particularly better than a modern crossover.
Fixed. The number of pre-1990s-ish cars of any origin susceptible to rust vastly outweighs the number resistant to rust.Weren't they also susceptible to rust like many other old cars?
A wagon is going to handle substantially better than a crossover that is probably almost identical mechanically?Wagons handle better,
Faster than what? The crossover that probably is within a couple hundred pounds of an identically specced wagon equivalent?are faster,
Less fuel like the BMW 140 uses less fuel then a Corvette?use less fuel
More stuff than what? The crossover that is usually very similar in exterior dimensions but with another foot or so in body height?and (for the most part) fit more stuff inside.
...Wagons handle better, are faster, use less fuel and (for the most part) fit more stuff inside.
Moreso crossover killed the wagon.Minivan killed the Wagon, SUV killed the Minivan, Crossover killed the SUV. Something will continue the cycle, but I doubt it's a traditional Wagon as we know it.
The wagon was already pretty past its sell by date in America by the end of the 80s, and the closest there was to a crossover at the time was the Cherokee. The only reason they really limped into the 1990s was because minivans were even more tragically unhip, even back then (hence GM's unmitigated disaster with the dual Luminas); and 4 door SUVs were thin on the ground.Moreso crossover killed the wagon.
First decent res photo in the search--I didn't pay much attention.Those Z31 side mirrors are hard to ignore once you notice.
First decent res photo in the search--I didn't pay much attention.
Car reliability should have its own thread here
You mean "GM cars run bad longer than most cars run at all" isn't a positive attribute?That reminds me of this one, longevity does not equal reliability.
Can attest to GM cars running bad longer. My last car was an '05 Chevy with 150k+ miles on it and relatively few issues.You mean "GM cars run bad longer than most cars run at all" isn't a positive attribute?
D:
You mean "GM cars run bad longer than most cars run at all" isn't a positive attribute?
D: