Hey guys was just wondering if lowering my car would only be a cosmetic advantage as compared to a performance advantage?
I have a 05 SE AWD.
Thanks!
I have a 05 SE AWD.
Thanks!
pk7683
This thread just shows how successful the marketing people have been. The crossover SUV is a very clever invention, appealing to those who want the SUV image but without the traditional SUV poor handling and gas mileage. The fact is that every crossover vehicle is based on a chassis originally designed for a car. Other SUVs such as say, the Pathfinder or Armada, are based on the chassis of their truck cousins, the Frontier and Titan. To me, that is a very clear distinction, car vs. truck. Do you consider the Civic based Honda CR-V a truck? Its basically what the Murano is to an Altima.
To me, an SUV can be a car or a truck, since it includes crossovers (car-based) and traditional SUV's (trucks-based).
If Nissan's marketing folks read this thread, they'd be giving each other high fives. Maybe it takes away the cool factor of a crossover if we call it a modern station wagon, but I already knew what the MO was when I bought it, and had no pretentions it was anything other than a big roomy Altima with a little more traction when it snows.
To me, an SUV can be a car or a truck, since it includes crossovers (car-based) and traditional SUV's (trucks-based).
If Nissan's marketing folks read this thread, they'd be giving each other high fives. Maybe it takes away the cool factor of a crossover if we call it a modern station wagon, but I already knew what the MO was when I bought it, and had no pretentions it was anything other than a big roomy Altima with a little more traction when it snows.
Hey I only said the MO is a car, never said it wasn't an SUV too. Maybe kind of a softie in the SUV crowd, but nonetheless the marketing folks have put them all into the same group.njjoe said:
What a way to wimp out on that one.
-njjoe
I still stand by my original statement though, that the MO is definitely NOT A TRUCK! :3:
Hey, we're all friends here, so no point in arguing about this, so I figured I'll take up the middle ground, you know, like a MO.SIM said:
Eric, you're the crossover of moderators but I hope that it only applies here otherwise I don't want to hear about it! :2:
Who really cares about SUV, trucks etc. This is all about naming conventions and marketing spill. I bought Murano for what it is. And I really do not care what it is called. Even if it was called a minivan......it does what it does....and it suits me.....at least for time being...
Kris, I agree 100%.
It does not matter how anyone calls it. It is still the sportiest and smoothest machine of its kind and it still makes me smile when I drive it.
It does not matter how anyone calls it. It is still the sportiest and smoothest machine of its kind and it still makes me smile when I drive it.
What convenient timing - this question was posted on Cartalk this morning:
Dear Tom and Ray:
I've always owned an "old lady" car (i.e., Pontiac Bonneville, Oldsmobile 88, Buick LeSabre). But I recently bought a 2007 Toyota Highlander. While I love the vehicle, I'm concerned about how easily SUVs "tip" over. I know there's a higher percentage of these vehicles that end up in the "turtle on its back" position. My husband assures me that my driving skills will not tip it over; it's just the idiots who think they can do anything because they have an SUV. Am I worrying for nothing, or do I have to learn to drive all over again and not take corners like I did in my old-lady cars? Thanks. -- Cheryl
RAY: I don't think you have to worry, Cheryl. But I think Toyota might be concerned that its Highlander is winning the "old lady" market!
TOM: First of all, your Highlander is not a traditional SUV. It's what is often called a "crossover." Not to be confused with my brother, who is often called a "cross-dresser."
RAY: The term "crossover" usually refers to a vehicle that looks like an SUV and has many of the advantages of an SUV, but is actually built on the underpinnings of a car. In the Highlander's case, it's based on the chassis of the Toyota Camry.
TOM: That means its center of gravity is lower to the ground, it handles better and it's less likely to flip over. Think of it as more like a station wagon than a truck. And as an old lady, you certainly remember when station wagons ruled the earth.
RAY: Plus, the Highlander comes with electronic stability control, which is a wonderful safety enhancement that works with the anti-lock braking system to help prevent you from losing control of the vehicle, even if you do something stupid (up to a point), like turning too sharply.
TOM: Can you flip it over? I'm sure, given enough effort, you could -- or given an unfortunate set of gravitational circumstances in just the wrong kind of accident. But that's true of almost any vehicle.
RAY: But your Highlander is much closer to the old-lady cars than to traditional SUVs. So, drive reasonably -- which I'm sure you do, Cheryl -- and you'll be fine.
Dear Tom and Ray:
I've always owned an "old lady" car (i.e., Pontiac Bonneville, Oldsmobile 88, Buick LeSabre). But I recently bought a 2007 Toyota Highlander. While I love the vehicle, I'm concerned about how easily SUVs "tip" over. I know there's a higher percentage of these vehicles that end up in the "turtle on its back" position. My husband assures me that my driving skills will not tip it over; it's just the idiots who think they can do anything because they have an SUV. Am I worrying for nothing, or do I have to learn to drive all over again and not take corners like I did in my old-lady cars? Thanks. -- Cheryl
RAY: I don't think you have to worry, Cheryl. But I think Toyota might be concerned that its Highlander is winning the "old lady" market!
TOM: First of all, your Highlander is not a traditional SUV. It's what is often called a "crossover." Not to be confused with my brother, who is often called a "cross-dresser."
RAY: The term "crossover" usually refers to a vehicle that looks like an SUV and has many of the advantages of an SUV, but is actually built on the underpinnings of a car. In the Highlander's case, it's based on the chassis of the Toyota Camry.
TOM: That means its center of gravity is lower to the ground, it handles better and it's less likely to flip over. Think of it as more like a station wagon than a truck. And as an old lady, you certainly remember when station wagons ruled the earth.
RAY: Plus, the Highlander comes with electronic stability control, which is a wonderful safety enhancement that works with the anti-lock braking system to help prevent you from losing control of the vehicle, even if you do something stupid (up to a point), like turning too sharply.
TOM: Can you flip it over? I'm sure, given enough effort, you could -- or given an unfortunate set of gravitational circumstances in just the wrong kind of accident. But that's true of almost any vehicle.
RAY: But your Highlander is much closer to the old-lady cars than to traditional SUVs. So, drive reasonably -- which I'm sure you do, Cheryl -- and you'll be fine.
I certainly agree that the Highlander looks and feels like an old-lady car. This is typical Toyota stuff. No fun but highly reliable.
The MO is better balanced. Maybe a little less reliable but SO MUCH MORE fun to drive!
The same comparison applies to a Corolla vs a Civic. Both cars are excellent but only one of them is fun to drive and feels safe over 60 mph in heavy rain.
The MO is better balanced. Maybe a little less reliable but SO MUCH MORE fun to drive!
The same comparison applies to a Corolla vs a Civic. Both cars are excellent but only one of them is fun to drive and feels safe over 60 mph in heavy rain.
Recently, I guess 4 weeks ago, I rented Camry in Houston and drove it for a week. Inside car feels OK but terrible driving experience! I would never ever recommend Camry! You turn steering wheel and..........5 seconds later car starts turning!
After that I drove Pontiac GrandPrix with turbo over mountains of Nevada, Arizona, Utah, 10,000 feet aboe the sea level. There is no comparison with Camry! I would take Pontiac over Camry in a hear beat!
I am a fun of Toyota as a company, as a business. But if Camry I rented is any indication of "fun to drive" Toyota style - there are no Toyotas for me! Reliability is not the only aspect of a car I consider during buying. There is much more.....
But what all of these has to do with lowering Murano?
After that I drove Pontiac GrandPrix with turbo over mountains of Nevada, Arizona, Utah, 10,000 feet aboe the sea level. There is no comparison with Camry! I would take Pontiac over Camry in a hear beat!
I am a fun of Toyota as a company, as a business. But if Camry I rented is any indication of "fun to drive" Toyota style - there are no Toyotas for me! Reliability is not the only aspect of a car I consider during buying. There is much more.....
But what all of these has to do with lowering Murano?
Who anyway, in his right state of mind, would even think about doing something so criminal? :2:
Yeah.... :4: We once had a Pontiac Grand Safari Station Wagon with a monstrous (by today's standards) big-block 455 cid engine. It produced in the neighborhood of 400 lb-ft of torque, and that's a nice neighborhood.Eric L. said:
Unfortunately, that much torque is a rarity today.-njjoe
SUV vs Truck?
Interesting discussion. I have never liked truck based suv's. Too high, and heavy and gas guzzlers, not to mention rather ugly.
We had ordered a Honda Pilot in Dec. of 02 but when MO came in, we drove it and never looked twice at Pilot except to comment on it's ugly (Toyota) looks. Had good luck with MO and scant reliability problems. Sold it almost two years ago and still are attracted to modern ones.
A friend of ours, who we may be in business with, has an almost new Pilot. I drove it and it was BORING as compared to MO.
Interesting discussion. I have never liked truck based suv's. Too high, and heavy and gas guzzlers, not to mention rather ugly.
We had ordered a Honda Pilot in Dec. of 02 but when MO came in, we drove it and never looked twice at Pilot except to comment on it's ugly (Toyota) looks. Had good luck with MO and scant reliability problems. Sold it almost two years ago and still are attracted to modern ones.
A friend of ours, who we may be in business with, has an almost new Pilot. I drove it and it was BORING as compared to MO.
I agree
My youngest son (36) just got a new Pilot and I drove it boring, well done but no spark or interest. I recently drove a Civic and an Accord I also was not impressed. They may be reliable but not exciting, as least to me. Nissan seems much more on the edge.
My youngest son (36) just got a new Pilot and I drove it boring, well done but no spark or interest. I recently drove a Civic and an Accord I also was not impressed. They may be reliable but not exciting, as least to me. Nissan seems much more on the edge.
Inspiring cars. Nissan cars like the Max and the MO are Japanese BMWs.
The Civic used to be fun to drive. Now it's too big. The S2000 is another thing though, and in another price bracket...
The Civic used to be fun to drive. Now it's too big. The S2000 is another thing though, and in another price bracket...
Re: SUV vs Truck?
Now there's some additional input to this discussion. What do you guys consider the Pilot to be? It's a uni-body design, considered a cross-over SUV. Do you consider it to be more of an SUV than the Murano? If so, why? If not, how come the Pilot is a car, while the old Toyota Rav 4 is an SUV?dborla01 said:A friend of ours, who we may be in business with, has an almost new Pilot. I drove it and it was BORING as compared to MO.
Re: Re: SUV vs Truck?
The Pilot is identical to the Murano is basic design - build an SUV looking (i.e. higher off the ground) vehicle on a car chassis (Murano = Altima, Pilot = Accord). The older RAV4 is also a car-based crossover SUV, based on the Corolla platform, although I think the current RAV4 has its own platform.
It depends whether you think SUV can only be a truck based vehicle like a Suburban or 4Runner. In the past ten years, SUV's have split into a) traditional (truck based), and b) crossover (car based).Corin said:
The Pilot is identical to the Murano is basic design - build an SUV looking (i.e. higher off the ground) vehicle on a car chassis (Murano = Altima, Pilot = Accord). The older RAV4 is also a car-based crossover SUV, based on the Corolla platform, although I think the current RAV4 has its own platform.
Pilot IMO is more SUV than a MO
Third Row of Seats. Sitting beside a Mo it is significantly bigger.
Third Row of Seats. Sitting beside a Mo it is significantly bigger.
Re: Re: Re: Re: SUV vs Truck?
Its like how the Camry shares a platform with the Highlander, Sienna, RX, and ES. Ford has gotten into the game too, using the Mazda 6's underpinnings as the basis for the Ford Fusion, Ford Edge and its Lincoln Mercury cousins. Ford also uses the older Volvo S80 platform on the Five Hundred (now the Taurus), Land Rover LR2, and Ford Freestyle (now the Taurus X.....w00t!)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acura_MDX
All of them are on an extended Accord platform, much like the Maxima, Altima, Murano, and Quest all share the same FF platform in one variant or another (well they used to, Altima is now on the D platform).pob312 said:
Its like how the Camry shares a platform with the Highlander, Sienna, RX, and ES. Ford has gotten into the game too, using the Mazda 6's underpinnings as the basis for the Ford Fusion, Ford Edge and its Lincoln Mercury cousins. Ford also uses the older Volvo S80 platform on the Five Hundred (now the Taurus), Land Rover LR2, and Ford Freestyle (now the Taurus X.....w00t!)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acura_MDX
What is coming out of this discussion is that everyone is both right and wrong and everyone has his own opinion of what a SUV is or should be.
I would personally exclude all 4 bangers from this denomination since they have a very limited hauling capacity of 2000 pounds (class I) and thus are very limited utility vehicles but this is my humble opinion.
And the CX-7 would be the only 4 cylinders vehicle sporty enough to be called a SUV for me as well if it was not limited to a class I hitch like the rest.
I would personally exclude all 4 bangers from this denomination since they have a very limited hauling capacity of 2000 pounds (class I) and thus are very limited utility vehicles but this is my humble opinion.
And the CX-7 would be the only 4 cylinders vehicle sporty enough to be called a SUV for me as well if it was not limited to a class I hitch like the rest.
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
