: Luxury 4x4's....



I~LUV~Caddys8792
12-24-10, 04:11 PM
Being a Minnesotan, we see a lot of snow each year, and 4x4's are very popular up here. But being a man who enjoys the finer things in life, I like luxury cars. So what got me to thinking, with the unusual amount of snowfall we've had this December (the most since 1891) and the fact that I've got a tight alley and it's tough to get a midsized car out of the garage without hitting the snowbank, it might be nice to get a luxury 4x4 next year (in a perfect world).

Anyways, what do you all think of luxury 4x4's? Is it fitting in today's world, or is it an anomaly and luxury and 4x4 shouldn't ever be mentioned in the same sentence...?

77CDV
12-24-10, 04:16 PM
For certain areas of the country, luxury 4x4s are wonderful upmarket vehicles for those who want cushy surroundings while still needing to get around in the white stuff. They're dead useless here in SoCal, but in MN, I would think they'd be quite useful.

Also, I apologise for the storm(s) we've been passing on to you. I don't envy the Vikings having to play al fresco in those conditions.

I~LUV~Caddys8792
12-24-10, 04:42 PM
Here are my favorites:
1993-98 Jeep Grand Cherokee Limited V8. Always thought the ZJ Jeeps looked fantastic...just square enough to look masculine and steadfast, but not overly boxy where it looks like it's gonna tip over. The Limiteds had all the options of the Cadillacs, and until the Escalade came out, it was "The Cadillac of SUVs" (with no disrespect to the Range Rover, but you can't call anything British the "Cadillac" of anything). They're small enough where city navigation is a breeze and great offroad as well. The 5.2 makes good power and the 5.9 Limited was the fastest SUV in it's day.

1999-00 Yukon Denali/99-01 Escalade.
The GMT-400 is the best looking SUV GM ever made IMO. With the Denali or Escalade, you get all of the luxury features available in one of these, and some amazingly soft heated leather seats.

Jeep Grand Wagoneer.
I'm gonna go out on a limb and say this is the best looking SUV of all time. Classic proportions, tons of chrome and faux wood trim, lots of luxury features, a proven (albeit slow) drivetrain.

drewsdeville
12-24-10, 04:48 PM
Here are my favorites:
1993-98 Jeep Grand Cherokee Limited V8. Always thought the ZJ Jeeps looked fantastic...just square enough to look masculine and steadfast, but not overly boxy where it looks like it's gonna tip over. The Limiteds had all the options of the Cadillacs, and until the Escalade came out, it was "The Cadillac of SUVs" (with no disrespect to the Range Rover, but you can't call anything British the "Cadillac" of anything). They're small enough where city navigation is a breeze and great offroad as well. The 5.2 makes good power and the 5.9 Limited was the fastest SUV in it's day.


:thumbsup:

We don't agree very often, but nice choice. The best on your list, IMHO. The most universal being great city vehicles, very respectable off road, and can really rack up the miles without much trouble. A classic Chrysler small block + great 4WD system + unibody strength and clearance = great all around workhorse and great fun for a SUV.

orconn
12-24-10, 05:19 PM
If the weather is bad enough to need a 4 wheel drive vehicle, it means it's bad enough to need galoshes, if not snow shoes. My point being, that if its that bad out why screw up your fancy interior with salty sludge and crud! Get something that is more utilitarian to deal with the bad parts of Winter and save the luxury stufff for better times and climes! But if you must have luxury and can afford the real thing don't settle for a frosted GMC Suburban, but get a Range Rover; i.e. if you can afford one you can probably afford two to make sure you have one to drive while the other one is in the shop!

Those old Jeep "Grand Wagoneers" owe an awful lot to their AMC origins! Interior hardware that breaks or falls off (or fell off during the first two weeks of ownership), upholstery suitable for a '60's Duburque diner and mpg that only a welfare queen could afford! Yeah, they were really great!

Jesda
12-24-10, 05:25 PM
90s Grand Cherokee for all-around capability, quality, value, and comfort. To this day, its probably the best new SUV bang for the buck on the market.

2003-2006 Navigator -- Best steering of any full-size SUV on the market. You have to drive it to believe it. And I've never, ever driven anything so comfortable over such a long distance. I went from STL to Tampa in one shot, 16 hours without any breaks except gas and snacks. Upon arrival I felt completely refreshed. It is, by far, the best on-road SUV ever. Offroad, its not as good as a Jeep. The interior space is massive thanks to seats that fold flat into the floor (hey Escalade, wtf) and a body that's even wider than the H2. I need to get another one.

I also agree with the GMT400. Those pickups and SUVs are classic Americana. Strength, power, durability, and a nice trucky feel. I actually prefer GMT400 to GMT800.

Playdrv4me
12-24-10, 07:20 PM
It depends on the budget. If I wanted to stay under 4-6k the 1998 Grand Cherokee 5.9 Limited would likely be at the very top of my list. They do have one primary weakness which of course is the transmission, but there are many companies that do rock solid rebuilds and a replacement isn't very expensive. Just a risk you learn to accept. The second weak point on the V8s is the Quadra-Trac NV249 transfer case. It is an AWD case with a viscous coupling that fails frequently, and only gives you the choice of full time AWD or low range. It is very easy and popular to swap this for the 242 Selec-Trac transfer case which is far more durable and offers many more traction modes. The JGC is arguably amongst the best suited luxo-ute to TRUE 4WD duty in common situations, and the 93-98 is the best bang for the buck. If you are willing to go up slightly in price, the WJ Grand Cherokees are even more luxurious and civil but you have to get a 2001 or newer with the High Output 4.7L V8.

Next up the list is a perennial favorite of mine, the 2001-2003 Infiniti QX4. Yes it is essentially a fancy Pathfinder, but the Pathfinder is a fantastic place to start, and the QX4 adds just enough upscale touches to make the upgrade worthwhile in the used market. Things like Xenon headlights, upgraded leather interior materials, some decent wood treatment, and a better overall style. They are also immensely capable off road and offer AWD systems with low range gearing, just like the GC.

The 2003-2006 Navigator is a fantastic choice in the 10-15k category and has nearly every amenity you could possibly fathom save for Bluetooth hands-free phone connectivity. From 2004 and up they came with a great THX Sound System and an available monotone appearance package that eliminates the shitty grey plastic my 2003 had down at the bottom. Power is a little lacking with the 5.4L rated at only 300hp. It's a good idea to buy a 2005 or newer as the 2003 and 2004 were the last years of the aluminum/iron 5.4L modular motor which has a chance of developing a head cooling defect (which mine did) which reduces cooling to the rear most parts of the cylinder head. Eventually this affects compression in those cylinders which is felt as a very very light vibration through the entire truck. It has obvious adverse effects on the already poor fuel economy and can eventually cause compression in other cylinders to be completely lost. Lincoln dealers charge around 5000.00 to machine and install a new head to remedy the problem. Fortunately it is far less common than the N* headgasket issues.

However, the undisputed kings of this category are the Toyota Land Cruiser/LX470 and the Range Rover. If you can afford anywhere between 12-18k neither of these two will leave you wanting for ANY creature comfort from any luxury car, and they both offer all the techno gadgets you could dream of, including fully height adjustable suspensions, Xenon headlights (Range Rover), and a lot more. If you value reliability and simplicity, then the obvious choice is the Land Cruiser, which will NEVER let you down. Jesda's stepdad has a 2004 with 291,000 miles on it he bought brand new. It still runs like a 30k mile vehicle and repairs have been essentially non-existant within that entire period of ownership. Unfortunately, the Land Cruiser/LX do suffer from a more sterile passenger environment and lack the connolly hides and rich accoutrements of the RR. The optimal affordability/feature year for the RR seems to be 2005, as the previous antiquated BMW navigation system was replaced with a thoroughly modern touch-screen system with higher resolution graphics and full Bluetooth connectivity. So it really depends on what you ultimately value and prefer between the two of them. The Land Cruiser and LX had minimal changes from 1998 to 2006, while the Range Rover isn't worth bothering with before 2003 (which was the pre-BMW Lucas era).

Destroyer
12-24-10, 10:04 PM
Being a Minnesotan, we see a lot of snow each year, and 4x4's are very popular up here. But being a man who enjoys the finer things in life, I like luxury cars. So what got me to thinking, with the unusual amount of snowfall we've had this December (the most since 1891) and the fact that I've got a tight alley and it's tough to get a midsized car out of the garage without hitting the snowbank, it might be nice to get a luxury 4x4 next year (in a perfect world).

Anyways, what do you all think of luxury 4x4's? Is it fitting in today's world, or is it an anomaly and luxury and 4x4 shouldn't ever be mentioned in the same sentence...?AMG G55:yup: I rode in my friends G55 recently and the power is just incredible. IF I was to saddle myself with an SUV, this would be the one.

ryannel2003
12-24-10, 10:46 PM
The brand new Grand Cherokee is by far the most impressive Chrysler vehicle I have seen in the past decade. When I sat inside I swear I was inside a vehicle costing $10k more. Everything was high quality, the styling is elegant, and of course, it's a Jeep.

I'm a fan of all generation of Escalade, even though the 1st Gen. really is nothing more than a Denali with nuance leather and zebrano wood. They aren't particularly good driving trucks either, but they have a really clean look and are simple, no-nonsense vehicles.

I'm not a big 4x4 person in general, but my mom has an '08 Denali XL and it's the best driving truck on the road IMO. Why buy the Escalade when the Denali is so good?

hueterm
12-24-10, 11:07 PM
For your purposes and budget, I'd say to get a 6 cyl GC Limited. Cushy, capable, and bulletproof...

EDIT: As to the whole concept of the luxury SUV, I say -- why not? If you want or need and SUV (and while not PC, those two things DON'T "HAVE" to go together...), why not get one that is nice inside -- if that's what you want?

My second choice for you would be a first gen Escalade or Denali. I actually prefer the Denali to the Escalade -- and they both have 2WD/4WD/LO in that generation.

How far do you have to drive to work? Gas isn't going to be good on any of these, just keep in mind.

I~LUV~Caddys8792
12-24-10, 11:48 PM
Yeah, but that 4.0 is such a dog in those, and the 5.2 is more plentiful and probably as good on gas, considering it's not as stressed. I'd bet that most of the Limiteds were built with the 5.2, but more Laredo's were built with the 4.0..

I don't know what the cooler ZJ is, the 1993 Grand Wagoneer or the 1998 5.9 Limited..
http://static.howstuffworks.com/gif/vehicle-pictures/1998/jeep/grand-cherokee/93107041990212-480.jpg
http://www.theautochannel.com/media/photos/jeep/1998/98_jeep_grand_cherokee_ltd.jpg

I've always loved the G-Class Mercedes, but that's another one of those "in a land far far away" vehicles. Simply an amazing 4x4 though...

V-Eight
12-24-10, 11:57 PM
The 4.0 in the one I drove had a fair bit of power, enough to spin the tires surprisingly well and get it up to speed relatively quick.

hueterm
12-25-10, 12:03 AM
And it will run for about 300,000 miles...

Granted, it's not fast...but especially those older GCs are so top heavy, you don't want to be playing Speed Racer in one...

The Orvis trumps all of the mid/late '90s GCs...

ben.gators
12-25-10, 12:23 AM
What about Range Rover? They are building luxury SUVs, but as far as I remember they are AWD, not 4*4. Does it count?

Playdrv4me
12-25-10, 12:24 AM
And it will run for about 300,000 miles...

Granted, it's not fast...but especially those older GCs are so top heavy, you don't want to be playing Speed Racer in one...

The Orvis trumps all of the mid/late '90s GCs...

The Orvis was neat for its introductory period, but the 5.9 completely trumps it. It's one of those cases where the premium for the 5.9 model was DEFINITELY worth every penny Chrysler charged for it.

Additions to the 5.9 Limited over and above regular limited (let's take a trip down memory lane and see if I can remember:

*Unique extra plush leather upholstery replacing the standard leather seating.

*Gathered leather trim on the door panels (far and away one of my favorite features of the 5.9 package).

*Unique leather wrapped shifter and transfer case shifter.

*Unique Dark wood trim with matching wood shifter bezel.

*Upgraded 120W Infinity sound system with rear cargo area soundbar, unique to the 5.9 only.

*Unique (at the time) 5 Spoke alloy wheels. These were later re-used on the 2001 XJ Cherokee and TJ Wrangler "60th Anniversary" Special Editions.

*Fully functional hood louvers

*Unique 5.9 only front grill with mesh insert.

*Chrome exhaust tip.

*Special 5.9 Limited Chrome Badging

*Mopar Performance Exhaust system

*5.9L 245hp V8 (obviously).

*160 amp alternator.

*Standard Quadra-Trac (no 2WD option available), Standard Sunroof (Sunroof delete available, these models are rare).

I think that's it... MSRP at the time was about $38,000.00. By contrast the Orvis was pretty much just an appearance package, although the muted outdoorsy tones were indeed very nice to look at. I briefly had a GC model that was an even stranger bird than either of those two...

http://imageonthefly.autodatadirect.com/images/?IMG=U8JPGEH2.jpg

Like that, except in silver. 1997 Grand Cherokee "TSi" model. Not sure what the hell the point of it was, but there is some speculation that the TSi model was introduced as a final homage to the Eagle brand which also died in 1997 and was the only Chrysler family brand otherwise to ever use "TSi" as a trim level. This GC had an odd bright purple pinstripe that followed the divot in the plastic cladding all the way around the truck.

As for the 4.0, it is MORE than sufficient to haul around the Grand Cherokee because it produces so much low end torque, however as the RPMs climb it does run out of steam. I have never seen a propensity for more V8 Limiteds than I6 ones, they seem to run about equal. However the Laredos are definitely more common in I6 trim.

I~LUV~Caddys8792
12-25-10, 12:27 AM
Well, no not really. They both do the same thing, except one is controlled electronically and one is manually input. That might not be the scientific definition of them, but it's how I always differentiated them. As far as I'm concerned, the Range Rover is the grand daddy of all luxury SUV's. There's a reason whenever I see someone refer to them as an RR, I always think of Rolls Royce first. :)

I~LUV~Caddys8792
12-25-10, 12:30 AM
Ian, that TSi is shown in my 1998 Jeep catalog. Was that some sort of a sports model before they came out with the 5.9 Limited? I see it was situated in between the Laredo and Limited in terms of features and price.

hueterm
12-25-10, 12:31 AM
Green Battenkill paint and leather + Orvis Battenkill luggage to go with it > 5.9...the later models w/the regular leather, not so much.

Of course, good luck finding any of them...

How is Jeep's SelectTrac vs. QuadraTrac? I know one is AWD and one is 2WD/4WD, but is one more capable than the other, besides the manual mode?

Playdrv4me
12-25-10, 12:47 AM
What about Range Rover? They are building luxury SUVs, but as far as I remember they are AWD, not 4*4. Does it count?

I mentioned Range Rovers earlier. Trust me, they have a FULL low range gear available unless you mean maybe the LR2/Freelander.

Playdrv4me
12-25-10, 12:51 AM
Green Battenkill paint and leather + Orvis Battenkill luggage to go with it > 5.9...the later models w/the regular leather, not so much.

Of course, good luck finding any of them...

How is Jeep's SelectTrac vs. QuadraTrac? I know one is AWD and one is 2WD/4WD, but is one more capable than the other, besides the manual mode?

lol we will agree to disagree on the 5.9. Although I DO agree the earlier Orvis was better than the later one. In fact by the time the 5.9 came out I specifically remember Edmunds or some other car review site specifically saying the 5.9 was replacing the "putrid" Orvis model.

Selec-Trac is all around better than Quadra-Trac. Primarily because of bulletproof reliability (the Quadra-Trac has a central viscous coupling which is prone to frequent failure), but it is also a far more versatile piece. Fortunately swapping from a 249 (QT) to a 242 (ST) is not difficult at all.

hueterm
12-25-10, 01:32 AM
Yeah, I'd like to have 2WD available....but "others" always seem to think they know best...i.e. Cadillac engineers...

Playdrv4me
12-25-10, 02:03 AM
Ian, that TSi is shown in my 1998 Jeep catalog. Was that some sort of a sports model before they came out with the 5.9 Limited? I see it was situated in between the Laredo and Limited in terms of features and price.

Sorry, I missed this post earlier. Actually you are right, the TSi was also sold during 1998, though I believe in fairly low numbers (much like there is technically a 2006 Crossfire SRT-6 but they are extremely rare). There is nothing particularly special about it, just an appearance and trim package like the Orvis. Rumor has it that it was created as a send off to the Eagle brand, which you may remember was the only other brand to have a trim level called "TSi".

Playdrv4me
12-25-10, 02:07 AM
Yeah, I'd like to have 2WD available....but "others" always seem to think they know best...i.e. Cadillac engineers...

Yea I really don't like that on the Escalade. So many reasons why it's nice to have a selectable system. Not the least of which is the fact that it places far less strain on all those AWD components (front diff, t-case, viscous coupling etc) that are running CONSTANTLY in an AWD non-selectable setup.

Jesda
12-25-10, 02:08 AM
The Orvis was neat for its introductory period, but the 5.9 completely trumps it. It's one of those cases where the premium for the 5.9 model was DEFINITELY worth every penny Chrysler charged for it.

Additions to the 5.9 Limited over and above regular limited (let's take a trip down memory lane and see if I can remember:

*Unique extra plush leather upholstery replacing the standard leather seating.

*Gathered leather trim on the door panels (far and away one of my favorite features of the 5.9 package).

*Unique leather wrapped shifter and transfer case shifter.

*Unique Dark wood trim with matching wood shifter bezel.

*Upgraded 120W Infinity sound system with rear cargo area soundbar, unique to the 5.9 only.

*Unique (at the time) 5 Spoke alloy wheels. These were later re-used on the 2001 XJ Cherokee and TJ Wrangler "60th Anniversary" Special Editions.

*Fully functional hood louvers

*Unique 5.9 only front grill with mesh insert.

*Chrome exhaust tip.

*Special 5.9 Limited Chrome Badging

*Mopar Performance Exhaust system

*5.9L 245hp V8 (obviously).

*160 amp alternator.

*Standard Quadra-Trac (no 2WD option available), Standard Sunroof (Sunroof delete available, these models are rare).

I think that's it... MSRP at the time was about $38,000.00. By contrast the Orvis was pretty much just an appearance package, although the muted outdoorsy tones were indeed very nice to look at. I briefly had a GC model that was an even stranger bird than either of those two...

http://imageonthefly.autodatadirect.com/images/?IMG=U8JPGEH2.jpg

Like that, except in silver. 1997 Grand Cherokee "TSi" model. Not sure what the hell the point of it was, but there is some speculation that the TSi model was introduced as a final homage to the Eagle brand which also died in 1997 and was the only Chrysler family brand otherwise to ever use "TSi" as a trim level. This GC had an odd bright purple pinstripe that followed the divot in the plastic cladding all the way around the truck.

As for the 4.0, it is MORE than sufficient to haul around the Grand Cherokee because it produces so much low end torque, however as the RPMs climb it does run out of steam. I have never seen a propensity for more V8 Limiteds than I6 ones, they seem to run about equal. However the Laredos are definitely more common in I6 trim.

Encyclopedia Rick

hueterm
12-25-10, 02:30 AM
WIanPedia

I~LUV~Caddys8792
12-25-10, 08:54 AM
I'd heard that on the 5.9L Grand Cherokees, the viscous coupling transfer case is prone to break and frequently, because of all that power that the 5.9L was putting out. If you swapped transfer cases to the 242, it would hold up a lot better to the power and get you better mileage because you could transfer it to 2WD. How easy is it to do though? Does it make for a clean swap in the center console or does it look like a jumbled mess?

Speaking of that 5.9L, is it a special high performance variant of 5.9's or just standard fare? The only reason I ask is because it puts down power close to an LT-1's, but without that goofy optispark or reverse cooling systems. It appears to be the same 5.9 that Chrysler used in the Durango R/Ts, Dakota R/Ts as well.

Playdrv4me
12-25-10, 06:18 PM
I don't think there is anything particularly special about the 360 in the GC, at least not that I know of. The swap to the 242 is very clean. If anything you would have to change the Quadtra-Trac shifter bezel for the Selec-Trac version with the different painted indicators, but most people don't even bother with that. It is straight opening so nothing changes except where the physical markings for the different shift options are. I'm sure the extra power in the 5.9 did not help matters, but the 249 transfer case was problematic in ALL GCs.

ga_etc
12-25-10, 07:39 PM
The GC is a really good bang for your buck SUV, only problem around here is they're getting really hard to find with reasonable mileage on them. 200+ isn't all that uncommon. I could go for a '96-'02 Toyota 4Runner Limited.

Bro-Ham
12-26-10, 12:11 AM
Now I think I've heard it all... :) Chad, a couple months ago I picked up a super clean 95 Grand Cherokee and when I told you about it you scoffed, and on a couple of occasions advised me to get rid of it. Abracadabra, now this exact type and vintage of Jeep is on the top of your vehicle obsession list du jour? You're funny. :)

I~LUV~Caddys8792
12-26-10, 12:33 AM
Oh did I scoff at it? I don't recall. I do remember saying that you should buy that '95 Grand Marquis before you buy that Grand Cherokee. If I remember correctly, yours is the Laredo edition, with the 4.0L I-6. Is that right?

I'm funny about Jeeps. I don't care for Jeeps as a whole. 4x4's aren't really my thing by and large, unless they're luxury SUV's. With the Laredo, SE or TSi Grand Cherokee, I'm not that impressed (sorry :) ) because it's not much above a Cherokee in terms of features and equipment, atleast in terms of luxury gadgets. But, they're bigger and have the option of a V8. I really like the 1993-98 Grand Cherokee Limiteds, because they're smallish and handsome, have awesomely comfortable seats and awesome looking wheels, with all the luxury accoutrements of a Chrysler LHS from the era, and aside from the Range Rovers, they were the best equipped luxury SUVs when they were introduced. The later (99-04) Grand Cherokees never did anything for me, and the 05-10's are just ugly IMO. The newest one though looks great and will make up for that last generation.

Playdrv4me
12-26-10, 02:33 AM
Oh did I scoff at it? I don't recall. I do remember saying that you should buy that '95 Grand Marquis before you buy that Grand Cherokee. If I remember correctly, yours is the Laredo edition, with the 4.0L I-6. Is that right?

I'm funny about Jeeps. I don't care for Jeeps as a whole. 4x4's aren't really my thing by and large, unless they're luxury SUV's. With the Laredo, SE or TSi Grand Cherokee, I'm not that impressed (sorry :) ) because it's not much above a Cherokee in terms of features and equipment, atleast in terms of luxury gadgets. But, they're bigger and have the option of a V8. I really like the 1993-98 Grand Cherokee Limiteds, because they're smallish and handsome, have awesomely comfortable seats and awesome looking wheels, with all the luxury accoutrements of a Chrysler LHS from the era, and aside from the Range Rovers, they were the best equipped luxury SUVs when they were introduced. The later (99-04) Grand Cherokees never did anything for me, and the 05-10's are just ugly IMO. The newest one though looks great and will make up for that last generation.

I was not a fan of the TSi which is why I got rid of it so quickly. Some day I hope to own a 5.9 if I happen to need that kind of vehicle again. I suppose we could have gotten one of those for mom instead of the Expedition, but they are getting hard to find and the transmission issues were not something I wanted to potentially deal with. I already had a beautiful Laredo 4x4 that shit a transmission and got returned to the dealer (they had a free extended warranty and decided to return my money rather than fix the transmission).

ben.gators
12-26-10, 03:26 AM
I have a question Ian! I know Jesda has a Jeep and a 2001 (?) STS, and you have the same cars too. Do you guys have your own STS and Jeep or you share the same cars?

Aron9000
12-26-10, 02:05 PM
I have heard nothing but bad things about those 1st gen Grand Cherokees. A friend had a 1998 5.9 Limited, bought brand new. What a POS, he had the transfer case, transmission, front diff, rear diff, and several wheel bearings go out all before 100k miles. All of it after warranty as well.

I got to say it was really nicely appointed and had really cushy seats, but a total POS mechanically.

If I were looking for a "cheap" Jeep that wasn't a Wrangler/CJ7, I'd stick with a 90's Cherokee. Those were a lot more reliable and had a lot fewer problems with transmissions, t-cases, axles, etc. I really do believe that the reason they have held up so well is that they were engineered by AMC, with AMC drivetrains, not Chrysler crap engineering/parts.


Also, the 90's Pathfinder/QX4 are great buys now days as well. They run great, no real problems, and are a lot cheaper than 90's/early 00's 4-Runners, which are also great by pricey IMO.

Playdrv4me
12-26-10, 02:54 PM
If all you're after is reliability the XJ cherokee would be the Jeep of choice. I've owned several of both types however and when it comes down to living with the thing on a daily basis, I'd take a GC limited to a Cherokee hands down any day of the week. It's not as if the things that break on them are even that expensive to fix, and there is a huge aftermarket making better than new reinforced replacements for the offroad market.

As my brother likes to say, the XJ Cherokee is "all a man needs", to which I rebut that the ZJ is "what he really wanted".

As for the 90s Pathfinders, you could not give me one of those underpowered POSs, I had a '95 and it stands to this day as one of the cheapest feeling most underpowered vehicles I have ever owned. It could not get out of it's own way. That little 3.0L just runs out of steam as soon as ANY load is placed on it. It doesn't help that it's extremely vulnerable to tinwormitis like all thin 90s Nissans. The 2001 and up with the 3.5 is worlds better. Still not great but at least perfectly acceptable. My choice is the QX4 in those years though.

MauiV
12-26-10, 04:57 PM
Get a XJ Cherokee Limited. Much simpler vehicle, 4.0 reliability, easy to work on, literally THOUSANDS of aftermarket options and timeless lines with a more upscale interior than a Sport or Classic. Im looking for one for a winter beater right now

I~LUV~Caddys8792
12-26-10, 06:19 PM
One of my best friends has an '01 Cherokee Sport Four Door 4x4 that he bought in the winter of '06. It's a dark green with the grey cloth interior, 4.0L I-6 and FIVE SPEED MANUAL! According to Sandy, any of the '01s with the five speed manual were a special ordered truck, because if a dealer ordered it that way for their inventory, it would likely sit for a long time, not something you're gonna wanna do when a vehicle is on it's last year. Anyways, its a decent 4x4, but nothing I'd buy, even in Limited trim with the leather and faux wood trim.

ga_etc
12-26-10, 06:38 PM
In high school a friend of mine had a '95 Cherokee Country, white with gold trim and the tan leather/tweed interior. That color combo with the lace alloy wheels looks really good and being lighter than a GC the 4.0 moved it pretty damn well. I liked his. He went from that to a 5 speed '95 Pathfinder. The auto Pathfinder was a dog, but the 5 speed really woke them up. He could take off in 2nd and bark the tires.

hueterm
12-26-10, 08:41 PM
I HATE the back seats in those Cherokees. They're worse than the ones in the wagons -- they are SO LOW.

A guy I worked with had a 2-door stripped down one of those. He was always the LAST one we picked to ride to lunch with...

ga_etc
12-26-10, 09:36 PM
Cherokee Country (http://www.autotrader.com/fyc/vdp.jsp?ct=u&car_id=291943074&dealer_id=100046192&car_year=1996&sownerid=79324&lastBeginningStartYear=1981&end_year=1998&model=CHER&showZipError=y&pager.offset=50&search_lang=en&start_year=1981&page_location=findacar::ispsearchform&search_type=both&body_code=0&first_record=51&distance=0&default_sort=newsortbyprice_DESC&address=30721&rdm=1293416491067&marketZipError=false&sort_type=priceDESC&awsp=false&make=JEEP&seller_type=b&num_records=25&cardist=497&standard=false&rdpage=thumb) FTW.

ga_etc
12-26-10, 09:54 PM
HERE'S (http://www.autotrader.com/fyc/vdp.jsp?ct=u&car_id=290878448&dealer_id=100021770&car_year=1997&doors=&systime=&model=JEEPGRAND&search_lang=en&start_year=1981&keywordsrep=&keywordsfyc=&highlightFirstMakeModel=&search_type=both&distance=0&min_price=&drive=&rdm=1293418054400&marketZipError=false&advanced=&fuel=&keywords_display=&sownerid=79324&lastBeginningStartYear=1981&end_year=1998&showZipError=y&make2=&certified=&engine=&page_location=findacar::ispsearchform&body_code=0&transmission=&default_sort=newsortbyprice_DESC&max_mileage=&address=30721&color=&sort_type=priceDESC&max_price=&awsp=false&make=JEEP&seller_type=b&num_records=25&cardist=1775&standard=false&rdpage=thumb) your CGL. Love the color and good mileage.

I~LUV~Caddys8792
12-26-10, 11:21 PM
Wow, those Grand Cherokees still command a pretty penny! And yeah, my buddy's Cherokee Sport has an awful rear seat. The backrest only comes up about halfway up your back and is at an odd angle, so aside from being uncomfortable, if you ever get rear ended you're gonna have some whiplash issues.

Playdrv4me
12-26-10, 11:31 PM
This is *EXTREMELY* tempting... http://www.autotrader.com/fyc/vdp.jsp?ct=u&car_id=291436068

hueterm
12-27-10, 08:32 AM
Wow, those Grand Cherokees still command a pretty penny! And yeah, my buddy's Cherokee Sport has an awful rear seat. The backrest only comes up about halfway up your back and is at an odd angle, so aside from being uncomfortable, if you ever get rear ended you're gonna have some whiplash issues.

Take it from someone who has back problems...you don't want them...

Jesda
12-27-10, 12:27 PM
Do you guys have your own STS and Jeep or you share the same cars?

All the cars get passed around like $5 hookers.

ga_etc
12-27-10, 05:58 PM
Except the Saab.

Bro-Ham
12-27-10, 07:14 PM
Here's my old heap. 95 Grand Cherokee Laredo. I'm still up north on my work project and this is ideal for trudging through the snow and cold while the 79 Cadillac rests comfortably in the garage. The Jeep had 163k miles when I got it in October, body is rust free, overall solid as a rock, 6-cylinder engine feels like it will run forever, got it from my car dealer friend for $1,300. It looks like I should advertise it on autotrader along with the other overpriced Grand Cherokees to see if I get lucky selling it for big money. Did cash for clunkers really eviscerate the old SUV market that badly?! :)

I~LUV~Caddys8792
12-27-10, 08:20 PM
Ian, buy it! There's a '98 5.9 Limited for sale in my area at a Jeep dealer. 132k miles and they're asking $7995 for it! Yours by comparison looks like an amazing deal! There are a few ZJ 5.2L GCL's in my area, maybe I'll take a gander at them if I have some free time one of these nights.

Dave, that looks nice! How amazing is it in the snow? I know this would be the year to test it. Snowiest December on record since 1891!

EDIT: found this beaut down in Albert Lea. I go there once weekly, so I'll swing in there and drive it when I go there this week. Is it a decent deal?
http://www.findcars.com/a.php3?q=486335

hueterm
12-27-10, 10:00 PM
Is this in place of the GS? If so, it would probably save you some money if you could get rid of the GS, and make it sooner to get your toy car.

I'm wanting that Orvis that Austin found...BAD!

ga_etc
12-27-10, 10:04 PM
Me and you both Mike. I found something else that's much cheaper and equally as cool.

hueterm
12-27-10, 10:04 PM
Yes?

ga_etc
12-27-10, 10:07 PM
Check Facebook, I posted it there. '87 Grand Wagoneer. Little rough but full of potential.

ga_etc
12-27-10, 10:12 PM
http://chattanooga.craigslist.org/cto/2127825685.html

I really hate being broke.

Aron9000
12-27-10, 11:45 PM
This is *EXTREMELY* tempting... http://www.autotrader.com/fyc/vdp.jsp?ct=u&car_id=291436068

Looks like my buddy's old 5.9 Limited. It was a pretty sweet looking rig, he had some of those big PIAA fog lights and round sort of push bar on the front of it, along with chrome tube side steps.

As for that old Wagoneer, its pretty beasty. Probably gets about 8mpg as well, lol.

Jesda
12-27-10, 11:57 PM
Hey Chad... 11pm, just checked in to the hotel. Continuing from our phone call, its more practical to keep the Regal, but if you really want an SUV, you can't beat a GC. Expect a 2mpg improvement by going with the 4.0 over the 318. Not sure how much fuel you'll consume with the 5.9.

11-13 mpg is what the 318 will get in the city, so be prepared.

I~LUV~Caddys8792
12-28-10, 12:02 AM
Gotcha, thanks. I talked with Mike about it and it seems as though any of those ZJ GC's will be almost impossible to finance at their age, and if they do, the rate would be insane. None of the newer SUV's really interest me at all, so the best choice at this stage would be to get a good set of winter tires for the Regal and deal with it.

ga_etc
12-28-10, 12:07 AM
I guess you could refi the Regal, but that's not a very good idea just to get an older GC. Maybe at the end of the winter you can talk Dave out of his shiny red one.

Very nice BTW Dave. I like that.

I~LUV~Caddys8792
12-28-10, 12:34 AM
Nah, it's a Laredo. I only want a Limited.

Playdrv4me
12-28-10, 12:37 AM
That GC sold this afternoon unfortunately, however it was all the way in NV so going to get it would have been a pain. Also, I am not convinced it is all that much better than the Expedition (which I would trade for it) to begin with. It is one of my all time favorites, but the Expedition is quite nice to take a trade loss on for something so similar and older. I almost traded for an LS400 today that WAS worth it, but it turned out to be a dud.

Bro-Ham
12-28-10, 11:48 AM
Thanks ga, for my purposes this old Laredo is perfect and good cheap fun. :)

Chad, you're funny. :) I could paint the lower cladding to be color keyed like a Limited, swap in a Limited leather interior, put on a few Limited badges, and still be in this thing for well under $2k. Meanwhile, you'll still be driving a Regal and paying (?!) for it. :) I'm only kidding. By the way, the Jeep is a ton of fun with all the snow, plus it cleans up and presents quite impressively. I questioned myself when I bought it in October right after Brandon bought the Roadmaster, but it didn't take long for the wisdom of the choice to become clear with bizzard after blizzard. :)

Happy New Year everyone! :) :) :)

I~LUV~Caddys8792
12-28-10, 06:03 PM
I drove a '94 Grand Cherokee Limited just a little while ago.....eh. 7/10

I liked the power that the 318 put out, it reminded me a lot of the 4.9 in my deVille, there was abundant torque and it was always right on tap. The Quadratrac all time 4WD system made it very easy to cope with the icy, slippery conditions and the rest of the drivetrain was nice and smooth. However, it rode quite firm and I don't know if I would be comfortable with that everyday during the nine months of the year that I don't need the 4WD system. The trip computer showed an average of 11.3 mpg, and that's not far from the norm from what I've heard. The interior looked nice upon initial inspection, but most everything felt chintzy and thin...plastics on the dashboard, cheap switchgear, thin seats. The leather was very very soft though, that was a definite bonus. Maybe not as soft or as fragrant as the Nuance leather in Cadillacs, but much better than the typical domestic stuff. The seats looked a lot more comfortable than they were. They weren't as deep as the seats in my GS nor as deep as seats in later model GCL's. It would be nice to have it as a second car for winter duty, but I don't think I'd be happy if I totally gave up my GS for it.

Here's the rig. Like I said, it's in great shape for it's age, but it's just not me.
http://inventory.tenbelowmotors.com/web_display/view/2883000

ben.gators
12-28-10, 08:51 PM
This can be a nice second or third car, but not as the first car that you want to rely on it during 365 days a year! GS is much more practical than this SUV...

hueterm
12-28-10, 08:54 PM
If you're looking for a 4x4, get a 2 door Tahoe or Yukon...

I LOVE those...

gdwriter
12-28-10, 09:02 PM
Here's the rig. Like I said, it's in great shape for it's age, but it's just not me.
http://inventory.tenbelowmotors.com/web_display/view/2883000Those seats look divine. A family friend had La-Z-Boys that looked just like those seats, and they were the kind of chairs you never want to get out of.

ga_etc
12-28-10, 10:14 PM
I'm a little surprised you weren't very impressed with the GC. Maybe you will find the right one though.

And I agree with you Mike. The two door versions of the Tahoe/Yukon are awesome.

blue07cts
12-28-10, 11:27 PM
Out of all the options i have heard, the one i like most is the toyota landcruiser/LEXUS LX470, my mom had a 97 when I was growing up and that thing was AMAZING to live with daily. It did any task she ever asked of it, NEVER had a SINGLE issue, and I mean NEVER, it's the only vehicle I can honestly say that about. I think at the very least there worth a test drive

Playdrv4me
12-28-10, 11:36 PM
Out of all the options i have heard, the one i like most is the toyota landcruiser/LEXUS LX470, my mom had a 97 when I was growing up and that thing was AMAZING to live with daily. It did any task she ever asked of it, NEVER had a SINGLE issue, and I mean NEVER, it's the only vehicle I can honestly say that about. I think at the very least there worth a test drive

The one Jesda's stepdad has is just amazing, it just completed yet another family vacation from Saint Louis to Texas and back. It will crest 300k in no time, and it is not even 7 years old.

ga_etc
12-28-10, 11:46 PM
The only think that makes me a little apprehensive about the Landcruiser/LX470 is that even though they're pretty much dead reliable, when they do break they're expensive as hell to fix.

blue07cts
12-29-10, 12:12 AM
Not too bad actually, There going to be WAY cheaper than a range rover to repair, but to your point I would research land cruiser forum to get some info on them as i'm sure there not the cheapest things in the world either.

I~LUV~Caddys8792
12-29-10, 12:29 AM
Land Cruisers are incredibly expensive, way out of my price range.

hueterm
12-29-10, 12:38 AM
Yeah, a late '90s generation would probably still be pushing $20K...IF you could find one and IF it had less than like 200K miles...

EDIT: Maybe not, I've found 100K for $13K ish...

ga_etc
12-29-10, 12:43 AM
On ebay there are late '90s ones going for $6,500 to the low teens. They have some interesting design features though. Like the CD changer carousel is in the back of the console.

blue07cts
12-29-10, 01:41 AM
Yeah i was gonna say there not that exspensive at all right now, worth looking into

Playdrv4me
12-29-10, 01:48 AM
1998 LX470s can be had for 12-14k easy with lowish miles. Aside from minor trim and equipment changes, it is essentially the same vehicle from 1998 through 2006. LX450s are becoming so increasingly rare that for the money it makes more sense to just get the 470.

I~LUV~Caddys8792
12-29-10, 08:50 AM
I like the GMT400s a lot, especially the Escalade and Denali, but it just bugs me that they weren't as fully equipped as the GCL's were. With the Escalade, you never got the auto climate control that I love so much, but with those you got rear A/C & heat, which is kinda cool, and heated seats FRONT AND REAR! I think the Denali got those as well? I looked into the Explorer Limiteds as well, because they were much like a GCL in terms of equipment and size, but they're hard to find (tons of XLT's and Eddie Bauers), but they're not as nice looking inside as the GCL or Escalade. Thought about a Bravada as well, but I'm really kinda sick of the 4.3 V6. I don't really like the one in the Astro very much, why would I want two?

gdwriter
12-29-10, 11:47 AM
The last generation Bravada (and the Buick Ranier) that replaced it came with a very nice straight six, twin cam IIRC. I drove a Trail Blazer with it, and it's very smooth with good pickup. For some odd reason, I remember the steering on the Trail Blazer to be very direct with excellent feel and smoothness. Easily the best steering I've ever encountered on a truck or SUV. And I don't know about the Olds, but the Buick could be had with a V8. Only problem is both are pretty rare. But I do believe there was a Denali version of the Envoy. I think Tony replaced his wife's SRX with an Envoy. He could probably tell you more about them.

ryannel2003
12-29-10, 12:30 PM
The GMT-360's are very nice vehicles and they drive really great. My favorite of all of them is the Bravada. I find it's styling to be the most elegant and having the nicest equipped interior. Since Oldsmobile's demise they have gotten dirt cheap with low miles and there aren't too many serious problems with them. Problem is they might be a little hard to find since not too many were made; the Buick is also a great alternative though I prefer the Olds styling.

Saab also made the 9-7x which has also gotten dirt cheap as well; Envoy and TrailBlazer would be the easiest to find by far.

Playdrv4me
12-29-10, 01:53 PM
The last generation Bravada (and the Buick Ranier) that replaced it came with a very nice straight six, twin cam IIRC. I drove a Trail Blazer with it, and it's very smooth with good pickup. For some odd reason, I remember the steering on the Trail Blazer to be very direct with excellent feel and smoothness. Easily the best steering I've ever encountered on a truck or SUV. And I don't know about the Olds, but the Buick could be had with a V8. Only problem is both are pretty rare. But I do believe there was a Denali version of the Envoy. I think Tony replaced his wife's SRX with an Envoy. He could probably tell you more about them.

Yes, the GMT360s were available with a Vortec 4.2L I6 that was rated for a whopping 290hp at the end of the 360's run. This motor made Ward's 10 Best list every year that it was available. In typical GM fashion however, once the GMT360 SUVs were phased out, the engine was completely dropped and is not available anymore. The I5 in the Colorado/Canyon/H3 is the same engine with 1 cylinder lopped off, but not nearly as powerful.

As for the GMT360 trucks themselves, they are OK I suppose. The height of that chassis was the Envoy Denali, Rainier, and Saab 9-7x. The latter two were available with the 5.3 V8, and maybe the Denali as well, but really it was completely unnecessary with the Vortec 4.2. The only problem I had with the GMT360 trucks was always the interiors, which were really plasticky. I suppose the most different from the rest was the 9-7x, it actually cost GM $20.00 per vehicle to move the ignition from the dash to the center console. It also was the only 360 to offer a Xenon headlight option and of course, Saab "Night Panel" mode. If ugly is your thing, the short-lived Envoy XUV had substantial additional cargo capacity with a design inspired by the Avalanche's split-cabin system.

If you step back to the previous generation, there were also two little known versions of that chassis that were actually REALLY nice (despite the overall frumpiness and cheapness of these as a whole). From about 1998-2000 two special editions of the Jimmy were introduced... The Jimmy "Diamond Edition" (which I did not know existed until Austin showed me one) is extremely rare, but has some really interesting diamond patterned leather seats and door panels. It also came with a factory brushgaurd with integrated fog lights, factory side steps and a silver cladding that are all color keyed to each other. Some of them had Xenon headlights, while others had regular headlights. They also had brushed aluminum wheels only available on that model. The other version that is a little easier to find is the Jimmy "Envoy" (before the GMT360 Envoy). Badged only as Envoy, it came standard with Xenon headlights, an upgraded interior with Envoy stitching on the seats, some wood trim, electronic climate control, heated seats and other amenities. It also had chrome wheels and plastic cladding available only on that model.

Envoy (note the ovoid slits for the Xenon headlights):
http://vlane.com/img/chrome/356.jpg

Jimmy Diamond Edition with the same Xenon headlight option:
http://images.dealerrevs.com/pictures/14315996.jpg

V-Eight
12-29-10, 02:16 PM
Pretty sure the 4.2 was just the 5.7 missing 2 cylinders, which would make it a V6 not an I6?

Playdrv4me
12-29-10, 02:21 PM
Pretty sure the 4.2 was just the 5.7 missing 2 cylinders, which would make it a V6 not an I6?

You are thinking of the 4.3L motor Chad has in his van which is exactly that. The 4.2L Vortec was an all new all original inline 6 cylinder developed specifically for the GMT360 platform introduction in 2002. Its development name is Atlas LL8.

Aron9000
12-29-10, 03:52 PM
You are thinking of the 4.3L motor Chad has in his van which is exactly that. The 4.2L Vortec was an all new all original inline 6 cylinder developed specifically for the GMT360 platform introduction in 2002. Its development name is Atlas LL8.

Still pisses me off that they never put that motor into the Chevy Colorado or Hummer H3. That would address all the complaints of those being underpowered. And actually the H3 has a very well made interior, the best being that thick, beefy leather wrapped steering wheel. Wish they would put that wheel in other trucks and SUVs.

I~LUV~Caddys8792
12-29-10, 07:28 PM
That 4.2L I-6 was a godsend from GM, but in typical GM fashion, they killed it. It had a ton of power (275-290hp) was reliable, smooth, and good on gas. I was talking to a client of mine who worked at a Chevrolet/Cadillac dealership when those came out in '02, and he told me that the 4.2 was detuned on purpose, so that it didn't make more power and torque than the 5.3L V8 in the full size trucks, and the 5.7L LS1 in the Camaros! He said with a cold air intake and exhaust, it'll make 325-330hp! That 4.2L I-6 is so so so much better than the 4.3L V-6 it really makes you wonder why they didn't use it longer. I bet it was because it's hard to package, being a big, long, tall inline six and all.

My grandpa and my godfather both have '02 Bravadas. Nice trucks, lots of luxury features, good room, comfy seats, quiet and smooth ride, but idk, they don't really "do" anything for me. Maybe it's because they're not as well proportioned as the 95-01 Explorers or Grand Cherokees, by that I mean the GMT360s appear to be taller and skinnier. It's rather like comparing a Dodge Sprinter to a Chevy Astro. The Bravada definitely is the nicest of the bunch, but that Rainier isn't bad either.

blue07cts
12-29-10, 11:57 PM
What about the lincoln aviator? there cheap,reliable and I think quite handsome. i would look at the MDX as well as there also dirt cheap used and they were something i hated until i drove one, they will surprise you.

Playdrv4me
12-30-10, 01:14 AM
Aviator is a great choice that is often forgotten in the shadow of the Navigator. That's a shame because if you don't need the behemoth Navigator's size, the Aviator is actually a lot more practical, and makes much better use of the 302hp on tap from the 4.6L DOHC mod motor. The Navigator is actually pretty damn sluggish and underpowered, but the Aviator is just the right size. I don't think there is any feature save for either the retracting running boards or power folding rear seats that you can't get on the Aviator.

V-Eight
12-30-10, 01:32 AM
You are thinking of the 4.3L motor Chad has in his van which is exactly that. The 4.2L Vortec was an all new all original inline 6 cylinder developed specifically for the GMT360 platform introduction in 2002. Its development name is Atlas LL8.

Wow, interesting. I never knew they made an inline Vortec motor.

hueterm
12-30-10, 08:35 AM
Yeah, the Aviator was pretty cool. It's really a shame that Ford let that whole Explorer platform wither and die. They're too concerned now about how many versions of the same crossover they can make.

I~LUV~Caddys8792
12-30-10, 10:56 PM
Was there a special "Leonardo DiCaprio" version of the Aviator?

hueterm
12-30-10, 11:07 PM
If you drove it, you were King of the World...

I~LUV~Caddys8792
12-30-10, 11:09 PM
Since I have a pair of authentic Ray-Ban Aviators, it's like they finally designed a vehicle just for ME!

orconn
12-30-10, 11:18 PM
What are you waiting for,Chad? It's like a sign from above "Aviator, Aviator, Aviator!" What could be clearer?

Aron9000
12-30-10, 11:39 PM
We had a 2005ish Lincoln Navigator as a company car at work, to shuttle guests and VIPS around in. I have to say it was a marvelous luxury machine, the ride quality was just sublime :cloud9: It also had a lot of space in the 2nd and 3rd rows of seats, very important in a chauffered vehicle. The power fold down rear seat was pretty trick as well, and the interior felt pretty nice and upscale. Not Rover or Benz nice, but light years better than the last gen Escalade.

Negatives were really in the way it drove. It never let you forget you were lugging around 6000lbs of top heavy mass. Steering was numb, engine was underpowered, transmission sometimes shifted goofy. Also a negative was the air bag suspension, great for ride quality, but something I'd never own outside of warranty.

As for its replacement, a 2008 Yukon Hybrid, the Navigator was a superior vehicle in terms of people hauling. Much more space in the 2nd and 3rd row seats. I also hate the way the 3rd row seats fold on all full size GM SUV's. They are very hard to fold without tweaking your back, and a real PITA to remove. As far as driving dynamics, the Yukon has much better steering, handling, and more power under the hood. Still sucks gas, we average 13mpg vs the 7mpg in the Navigator. I also feel like the interior was higher quality and offered more toys in the Navigator.

As for the Aviator, its a really cool, overlooked SUV. All the luxury of the Navigator, with much improved driving dynamics. Kind of wish they had been a little more original on the styling, but looking like an exact 3/4 scale model of the handsome Navigator is still looking good in my book.:cool2:

Playdrv4me
12-30-10, 11:52 PM
We had a 2005ish Lincoln Navigator as a company car at work, to shuttle guests and VIPS around in. I have to say it was a marvelous luxury machine, the ride quality was just sublime :cloud9: It also had a lot of space in the 2nd and 3rd rows of seats, very important in a chauffered vehicle. The power fold down rear seat was pretty trick as well, and the interior felt pretty nice and upscale. Not Rover or Benz nice, but light years better than the last gen Escalade.

Negatives were really in the way it drove. It never let you forget you were lugging around 6000lbs of top heavy mass. Steering was numb, engine was underpowered, transmission sometimes shifted goofy. Also a negative was the air bag suspension, great for ride quality, but something I'd never own outside of warranty.

As for its replacement, a 2008 Yukon Hybrid, the Navigator was a superior vehicle in terms of people hauling. Much more space in the 2nd and 3rd row seats. I also hate the way the 3rd row seats fold on all full size GM SUV's. They are very hard to fold without tweaking your back, and a real PITA to remove. As far as driving dynamics, the Yukon has much better steering, handling, and more power under the hood. Still sucks gas, we average 13mpg vs the 7mpg in the Navigator. I also feel like the interior was higher quality and offered more toys in the Navigator.

As for the Aviator, its a really cool, overlooked SUV. All the luxury of the Navigator, with much improved driving dynamics. Kind of wish they had been a little more original on the styling, but looking like an exact 3/4 scale model of the handsome Navigator is still looking good in my book.:cool2:

Hmm I dunno... As someone who has owned both a Navigator and two Escalades, I did love my Navigator's interior don't get me wrong... technologically and detail-wise it blew the boring Escalade away. But... Everything in the Escalade somehow just felt more substantial. The Navigator had thin leather (the ones with white interiors all the white wears off really quick from the driver seat) and a lot of panels that would give when you would push on them. The Escalade had an ancient hard dashboard, but it was all bolted together like it was meant to last forever. I would describe the Navigator as luxurious but flimsy, and the Escalade as utilitarian but durable.

Escalade absolutely without question blew away the Navigator on power and fuel economy, although the Navigator's Advancetrac with RSC made Stabilitrak look like child's play in the snow.

I~LUV~Caddys8792
12-31-10, 12:42 AM
What are you waiting for,Chad? It's like a sign from above "Aviator, Aviator, Aviator!" What could be clearer?

Eh, the fact that I don't wanna get in more debt for a vehicle that doesn't completely blow me away.

Playdrv4me
12-31-10, 01:31 AM
Eh, the fact that I don't wanna get in more debt for a vehicle that doesn't completely blow me away.

I certainly wouldn't bother trading the Regal if it isn't paid off. Once you pay it off then you'll have complete equity to trade toward something else. Better yet, you could sell it outright at that point and bring cash to the table.

Jesda
12-31-10, 01:37 AM
LOL, you guys at the Chicago meet in 2007 remember what happens in a Navigator when the air bags don't inflate

I~LUV~Caddys8792
12-31-10, 07:42 AM
That I very much do, but it was 2008. :) 2007 was the Des Moines meet, where I met you, Gary D, Nick C and others for the first time. Remember going to that restaurant called "The Latin Kings"? And how we raced your Q45 against my deVille?

The more I think about it, the less I'd really want an SUV as a daily driver. I don't like driving trucks for the most part, because they're large, top heavy, slow and piggish on the fuel. It would be nice to have some sort of an actual 4x4 midsized SUV for winter, but I can't afford to have 2-3 different cars.

96Fleetwood
12-31-10, 09:16 AM
Luxury 4x4... hmm... my mind starts thinking Porsche Cayenne Turbo, 1st Gen BMW X5 4.8is, Range Rover HSE, etc...

I did test drive something fairly reasonable recently that could be considered a Luxury 4x4... a 2009 Saab 9-7x Aero. It is basically a Traiblazer SS in a Tuxedo. Nothing wrong with 400hp, AWD, Navigation, Xenons, etc:

http://autosguides.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/2009-Saab-9-7X1.jpg

It was a CPO vehicle with every option for under $25K.. The '08 3SS AWD Trailblazer SS models I was looking at were more than $26K!

Playdrv4me
12-31-10, 02:55 PM
Wow... Saab really is so ridiculously obscure and out of the public eye that even I somehow missed the fact that they dropped the SS motor into this thing in 2008! This will DEFINITELY be THE luxury ute to watch over the next few years. At 25 grand it's frankly still overpriced (as I can get a 2006 RR Supercharged or 2007 Escalade for 28-30), but being a domestic built product, and a Saab to boot... it'll be down to 15-18k in a year and a half's time. At that price point it would be nearly impossible to resist. And I agree, in comparison to the TBSS the Saab is a MUCH nicer alternative. Unfortunately they are rare, there isn't even a single one listed on Ebay and C&D says only 500 were made in 2008. Good find.

Playdrv4me
12-31-10, 03:09 PM
Here's one for 21k... http://www.autotrader.com/fyc/vdp.jsp?ct=u&car_id=288736908

I love how all of the places that have these listed focus more on the Navigation system than what is under the hood, if they even know.

hueterm
12-31-10, 03:12 PM
Wow... Saab really is so ridiculously obscure and out of the public eye that even I somehow missed the fact that they dropped the SS motor into this thing in 2008! This will DEFINITELY be THE luxury ute to watch over the next few years. At 25 grand it's frankly still overpriced (as I can get a 2006 RR Supercharged or 2007 Escalade for 28-30), but being a domestic built product, and a Saab to boot... it'll be down to 15-18k in a year and a half's time. At that price point it would be nearly impossible to resist. And I agree, in comparison to the TBSS the Saab is a MUCH nicer alternative. Unfortunately they are rare, there isn't even a single one listed on Ebay and C&D says only 500 were made in 2008. Good find.

I bet you couldn't get those listed above w/38K miles at that price...

Playdrv4me
12-31-10, 03:17 PM
I bet you couldn't get those listed above w/38K miles at that price...

I don't particularly care about miles, especially on a domestic for two reasons... First, most domestics (N*s and other weird things excluded) are fairly reliable, simple designs and Second, they're all going to depreciate like rocks anyway. In fact, I have had more success with higher mileage cars than ones with very low mileage (Range Rover was relatively reliable at 100k while the Crossfire, a 1 owner car with 25k was a piece of junk). It seems that something driven a lot by a limited number of owners tends to indicate a solid car they weren't itching to dump at a low mileage. I'd much rather have the RR S/C or Escalade with 60 or 70k than the TrailSaab with 20 or 30 at that close of a price, even given the RR's spotty reliability.

I~LUV~Caddys8792
12-31-10, 05:31 PM
WOW! Did not even know that Saab put that big Super Sport V8 into the 9-7. That's pretty freaking cool! Jesda, you gotta buy one of these to go with Ducky!

96Fleetwood
12-31-10, 06:06 PM
I wouldn't touch the Range Rover unless it was under warranty. A good friend of mine just spent $3,500 to have his 'misfire' fixed on his 2005 HSE. It is not the drivetrain you have to watch on the RR.. it is the electronics.

hueterm
12-31-10, 06:10 PM
++++++1

I also had no idea the Saab 9-7 had 400HP (or the TBSS, for that matter)... That would be pretty sweet.

Playdrv4me
01-01-11, 01:28 AM
I wouldn't touch the Range Rover unless it was under warranty. A good friend of mine just spent $3,500 to have his 'misfire' fixed on his 2005 HSE. It is not the drivetrain you have to watch on the RR.. it is the electronics.

Not for the faint of heart (we are all intimately familiar with the guy who got so fed up with his brand new '08 it became an international Youtube star), but if you own even a half decent one there is nothing that comes close. I wouldn't pay a premium just for the warranty and low miles (we're talking as much as 12-15000.00 difference to get one as a CPO), but what I would do is get a higher mileage one and buy an extended warranty from one of the 1 or 2 reputable companies doing RR warranties (there are very few that do them, and they are well known on the RR board). I had one on my 2003 but never had to use it. Even if an extensive bumper to bumper warranty cost me 5 grand through the JM Group, I'd pocket the 10k difference and ride off into the sunset with my proven vehicle, while the guy with the low mileage CPO gets to be the "testbed" for his.

V-Eight
01-01-11, 01:24 PM
Luxury 4x4... hmm... my mind starts thinking Porsche Cayenne Turbo, 1st Gen BMW X5 4.8is, Range Rover HSE, etc...

I did test drive something fairly reasonable recently that could be considered a Luxury 4x4... a 2009 Saab 9-7x Aero. It is basically a Traiblazer SS in a Tuxedo. Nothing wrong with 400hp, AWD, Navigation, Xenons, etc:

http://autosguides.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/2009-Saab-9-7X1.jpg

It was a CPO vehicle with every option for under $25K.. The '08 3SS AWD Trailblazer SS models I was looking at were more than $26K!

I'd totally drive one of those. Was the Saab AWD or just RWD?

Playdrv4me
01-01-11, 02:09 PM
I'd totally drive one of those. Was the Saab AWD or just RWD?

AWD, very cool.

TheCaddyKidd
01-01-11, 03:18 PM
I'm from NJ and if you are anywhere in the area you know how much snow we just got hit with.. Let's just say I didn't have any problems gettign around or finding parking lol... God I love my truck..

http://i141.photobucket.com/albums/r78/fearthisinc/2006%20Cadillac%20Escalade%20EXT/DSC04185.jpg
http://i141.photobucket.com/albums/r78/fearthisinc/2006%20Cadillac%20Escalade%20EXT/DSC04190.jpg

hueterm
01-01-11, 03:24 PM
Obviously your tires made a huge difference. How did the AWD do in the snow? Have you driven a similar 4WD vehicle w/it locked into 4WD HI?

I think the EXT is not as good as my Avalanches were, but I don't have all terrain tires on it.

TheCaddyKidd
01-01-11, 03:45 PM
I think the tires made a huge difference but I have to admit that I never had problems with the escalade in the snow.. given I always had either my Nitto terra grapplers or the nitto trail grappler (pictured) on the vehicle during the winter.. Never really had problem losing traction or anything.. i used to have a durango which had the 4wd option so you could switch to 4hi and 4lo and all that.. we also have some explorers at work that we use.. the explorers got stuck on a few streets and if you had them parked on snow and tried to start moving you would have to go forward and reverse to try adn get out.. the escalade just plowed through it all.. never lost traction or anything.. so im going to say the tires helped alot.. add in the lift and the truck didnt have any problems.. sure as hell didnt have problems parking anywhere lol..

orconn
01-01-11, 03:59 PM
And, exactly, where were you going in all that snow in Jersey? I would think that just about everything was closed!

Playdrv4me
01-01-11, 04:28 PM
I'm from NJ and if you are anywhere in the area you know how much snow we just got hit with.. Let's just say I didn't have any problems gettign around or finding parking lol... God I love my truck..

http://i141.photobucket.com/albums/r78/fearthisinc/2006%20Cadillac%20Escalade%20EXT/DSC04185.jpg
http://i141.photobucket.com/albums/r78/fearthisinc/2006%20Cadillac%20Escalade%20EXT/DSC04190.jpg

Yikes, too each his own but I don't understand why you had to mess with the headlights... They were already Xenon and they looked fine....

The fog light in the grill thing is kinda cool though.

TheCaddyKidd
01-01-11, 05:41 PM
I had to get to work lol.. Law enforcement doesnt take a day off lol.. and when a lot of the guys you work with drive little honda's you have to pick everyone up lol..

as for the headlights... i wanted to try someting different and thought I would grab these.. got a good deal on them so figured it was worth a shot.. the led's and halo's look nice when you put them on by themselves.. and the projectors look pretty sweet too...