 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Car Forum / Driving, Maintenance, Tuning / Driving / January 20082008 Saturn Vue XE 4 cylinder vs 2008 Pontiac Torrent
RE: 2008 Saturn Vue XE 4 cylinder vs 2008 Pontiac Torrent I've narrowed my search for a small SUV to these two cars. Main reasons, forward folding passenger seat, reclining rear seats and lots of rear leg room. I need these features as I sometimes need to work on my laptop from the car and like to sit in the back. Both FWD, Both Leather interior. Both black exterior. I was able to negotiate the Vue down to about 24k Out the door. And the Torrent for about 25k out the door. The Vue is 4 cylinders, but drives real nice for a 4 and will save some gas money. The Torrent is 6 cylinders, but engine seems loud and kind of low torque for a v6. The Vue does 19 city mpg, the Torrent 17mpg. (Slight win for Vue - though not a fair play) Leather on Torrent seams cheaper grade, comes in charcoal, Vues leather seems nicer, but in taupe. I prefer charcoal, but the taupe does look nice with black. As far of space in the back seat, the Torrent is incredible. roll the driver seat up and fold the passenger side and I feel like i'm in my living room. Incredible to think it's a small SUV. Exterior looks, both have their pros and are attractive. To me, much more attractive than the Honda CR-V. Also the CR-V does hot have a folding passenger seat (who cares right? well I do). Many small size suv's also still have the spare tire showing which is stupid. Sometimes the Torrent looks like a Minivan. Sometimes the Vue looks like a cheap Korean car. All that said, I would just buy the Torrent for the rear seating space and dark interior, my only concern is a online few reports I've read that might imply cheap plastic parts int he car might break and that over time, and in classic GM style, the engine might get weak and clunky. Any strong opinions about these cars or better alternatives? Any reason to simply not buy the Torrent? My most desired features in my next small SUV. - Folding flat passenger seat - Reclining rear seats with plenty of head and leg room - Despite being small SUV, something that does not say, girly car like the CR-V seems to scream. - Decent fuel economy - Around $25k OTD with leather (I know that seriously narrows the field) Thanks in advance for any help or information. > RE: 2008 Saturn Vue XE 4 cylinder vs 2008 Pontiac Torrent > [quoted text clipped - 56 lines] > > Thanks in advance for any help or information. Just curious, what is your rationale for buying a SUV if you don't need AWD/4WD? Seems like a compact/midsize wagon would fill your needs with much less frontal area and a lower center of gravity. nate  Signaturereplace "roosters" with "cox" to reply. http://members.cox.net/njnagel > Just curious, what is your rationale for buying a SUV if you don't need > AWD/4WD? Seems like a compact/midsize wagon would fill your needs with > much less frontal area and a lower center of gravity. > > nate I'm in South Florida, and only drive south Florida - very flat terrain. I use the roof rack and cargo area to often carry supplies. I 've never owned a sedan, just don't like the way they look. > > Just curious, what is your rationale for buying a SUV if you don't need > > AWD/4WD? Seems like a compact/midsize wagon would fill your needs with [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > terrain. I use the roof rack and cargo area to often carry supplies. > I 've never owned a sedan, just don't like the way they look. Can't really argue with that, since in your area AWD/4WD would not be necessary...unless there's significant mud covering on the highway after a hurricane. I'm in Missouri, where 4WD is only handy about 2-3 months per year in case of snow. Ice is a different matter; all types of drive including the shoes would be dicey in those conditions. >>> Just curious, what is your rationale for buying a SUV if you don't need >>> AWD/4WD? Seems like a compact/midsize wagon would fill your needs with [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >> terrain. I use the roof rack and cargo area to often carry supplies. >> I 've never owned a sedan, just don't like the way they look. But you like the look of the Vue and Torrent?! Anyway, no one is suggesting a sedan, but there are some very nice wagons available. It just seems like a waste to buy an SUV if you don't actually need one, especially since you're concerned with fuel mileage. My recommendation would be an Audi A3. Nice looking, amazing quality feel, folding seats, 21/29 mpg, 6.7s 0-60 mph, for $25k. And, no, it isn't a sedan... > Can't really argue with that, since in your area AWD/4WD would not be > necessary...unless there's significant mud covering on the highway > after a hurricane. I'm in Missouri, where 4WD is only handy about 2-3 > months per year in case of snow. Ice is a different matter; all types > of drive including the shoes would be dicey in those conditions. I don't get the point of SUV's without AWD/4x4. I have a '90 Cherokee and the grip on snow is awesome. Yesterday I was driving up and down the local ski slope, it's more of a hill than anything else, and with the right speed there was no problem making it all the way up. Of course, this was with locked center diff, aftermarket automatic locker in the rear diff, and studded snow tires, but I was still surprised over the grip. It actually drove better than it stopped... Ulf >I don't get the point of SUV's without AWD/4x4. It's an acknowledgement by the manufacturers that the only time the vast majority of these vehicles go off-road is when they are parked in the owner's driveway. 4WD costs more to buy, and there are more parts to maintain (or to break). What most people really want is the LOOK of 4WD, especially the high ground clearance. That's why you have 2WD versions of most SUVs and pickup trucks that have the high ground clearance and all the other exterior accoutrements - you can both look cool and save money (and fuel) at the same time. Signature"You can all kiss my @ss!" - Carl Rogers, Message-ID: <IE1ej.2353$se5.298@nlpi069.nbdc.sbc.com> >>I don't get the point of SUV's without AWD/4x4. > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > other exterior accoutrements - you can both look cool and save money > (and fuel) at the same time. Well, I have a 2WD pickup truck... simply because it's a semi-urban hauler (will probably never see snow tires; if I need to haul something heavy I'm not going to want to do it when it's snowing...) and that's what was available used and cheap when I was looking for a truck. My original post was essentially expressing my lack of understanding as to *why* someone would want a small, SUV-like critter if one did not need off-road or at least poor-road capabilities or towing/hauling abilities. It seems to me like the OP does not have these needs, which makes me think that a small/midsize wagon wouldn't have the fuel economy or handling compromises inherent in a tall SUV design. I'll leave it to the rabid tree-huggers to actually flame him for his preferences (Lord knows there've been enough of them here lately) and just leave it as "I would not be looking at those particular vehicles. How about a nice Subaru instead?" And, of course, I have no input towards his actual question as those two particular vehicles hold no interest whatsoever for me. nate Signaturereplace "roosters" with "cox" to reply. http://members.cox.net/njnagel |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.