bitkahuna

iTrader: (20)

perhaps your subaru bias is showing as i bet most people couldn't care less about awd in a CUV. if you live with a fair bit of snow or mountains or go off road, then maybe. otherwise, not worth the money or drop in fuel economy. so that's why it's not offered on the base model. just like toyota tends to only sell hybrid versions of vehicles that are normally sold non-hybrid (e.g., camry, rx) as completely loaded ones.

anyway, thanks as always for the comprehensive review.

mmarshall

I wouldn't feel too bad If I was you...it's not necessarily your fault. A lot depends on the vehicle you are negotiating on. The GLK, with its generally low demand and substantial mark-up between wholesale/invoice and retail, is ripe for discounting. But if you are after a high-demand vehicle in low supply, or one where there isn't much room for profit, then that could be a different story. In fact, hot new models are often sold over list price.

I agree it s basically a mid-high 20s vehicle, but the top-line Titanium version does give you substantially more standard features......and the 2.0L Turbo engine that no other new Escape version shares.

mmarshall

That's not quite the point, though. As I see it, CUV buyers should not have to buy upmarket versions to get the AWD.....it should be at least an option on the base model.


Again, to an extent, I think it skips the point I was trying to make. If it's just a FWD or RWD people or cargo-mover that people want (or need), then why look at at an SUV at all? That's what hatchbacks, wagons, and vehicles like the Mazda 5 and the now-discontinued Kia Rondo are for (the Rondo, especially, was a blast of a deal and one of the most-overlooked and most versatile small people-movers on the market). SUVs, traditionally, are supposed to be for bad weather, off-roading, or both. Even the newer unibody car-based ones that are primarily driven on paved roads are still primarily designed for all-weather versatility. That's not "Subaru-bias", but, as I see it, just stating a fact.


Sure....anytime. I wish I could have done this one sooner. The new Escapes took their time getting to the D.C. area.

Sulu

This is one of those preferences that cannot be explained. There are at least 3 types of vehicles that are better at carrying people and/or cargo than the SUV/CUV: the station wagon, the multi-purpose vehicle (MPV, as in the Mazda5 and Kia Rondo), and the minivan. Yet, Americans do not like these vehicles; they prefer the SUV/CUV. The station wagon fell out of favour a number of years ago; the minivan’s popularity has been sinking, forcing Ford and GM to stop selling their models, and Chrysler to dump one of their two models. Yet, Ford now sells the Flex and GM the Lambda triplets which can be argued are the SUV equivalents of minivans (but without the benefits of a low step-in height, flat floor, true comfortable 7-passenger seating instead of 5+2 seating and cargo room even with all 3 rows of seats up).

I will not go into the psychological reasons for preferring the SUV that I have read about (to avoid getting attacked). Let me just say that there may be a feeling of safety in the higher seating position of the SUV/CUV. And, I have to disagree, Mike: the ability to order the SUV/CUV with AWD is not one of the reasons for the preference for this type of vehicle. I remember visiting a cousin in Florida a few years back. He drove a plain RWD Ford Explorer. He told me that he wanted the Explorer but did not need and did not want 4WD/AWD because of the added cost and because it was an unneeded feature to him. Did he need a big, heavy SUV for only him and his wife? Probably not, but he wanted it and he justified it by searching far and wide for a plain RWD model.

And why do we really need AWD? You should remember, Mike, that not so many years ago (to some of us, at least), we all drove big American cars with just RWD (and no traction control or ABS), even up here in Canada. Come November each year, we put snow tires on the back axle and continued to drive in the snow with no problems.

bitkahuna

iTrader: (20)

the base is a loss leader for dealers to advertise the low price and then when the customers come in, they typically buy a higher trim line. so the base is pretty much irrelevant to most buyers.

because they're not the same. i have an suv. i've had a station wagon. not even close to the same. i like the tall cargo area in an suv. i like the higher seating position and ease of entry/exit. the taller vehicle also provides more leg room. etc. i don't need awd AT ALL.

that really was never true, unless you want to consider niche vehicles like a land rover. explorer, and jeep cherokee, early suvs, both became mainstream for benefits other than off-roading, bad weather use, etc. an suv is basically a tall wagon and i, along with millions, appreciate the space and flexibility, without needing an arsenal of seats in a minivan. i've been tempted to drive something smaller, and may still, but each time i've thought about it or looked, i find smaller vehicles, well, just too small and cramped.

i have NO interest in sedans or wagons.

i disagree that that's what they're 'primarily designed for'.

see above.

better in your opinion, not better to millions.

minivan - good for hordes of whining kids. no thanks.
station wagon - sedan height. no thanks.
mpv - smaller, funky. um, no.

i could be your cousin. i'm in florida, and i drive a rwd explorer.

[quote\And why do we really need AWD? You should remember, Mike, that not so many years ago (to some of us, at least), we all drove big American cars with just RWD (and no traction control or ABS), even up here in Canada. Come November each year, we put snow tires on the back axle and continued to drive in the snow with no problems.[/quote]

agreed!

LexBob2

I just began looking at CUV's. If I find one I like that offers the choice of FWD or AWD in the trim level that i want I'd go with FWD. I live in the snow belt and have found FWD with VSC and TRAC is fine for me. These days even after a big snow storm the main roads are cleared quickly. I prefer the lighter weight, slightly higher mpg's and lower cost of FWD. If FWD isn't available in what I want I'd consider FWD.

mmarshall

Yep....and, in my experience, those big RWD dinosaurs were (mostly) a PITA in snow and ice. Even my experience with a RWD Lexus IS300 and its traction-control wasn't much better.

Can't speak for your Canadadian experience, but, from what I saw in years of U.S. driving, that wasn't the case at all....and certainly wasn't my experience with RWD and snow tires (at least with the snow tires that were available back then). They only lessened the winter traction-problems very slightly at most.

IMO, even with electronic traction-aids, the only real solution to RWD traction problems is chains or studded tires.......and many places here in the U.S. outlaw studs. That's why the cops and their Crown Vics, who have to be out no matter what, often chain up at the first hint of a snowflake.
Sometimes, with RWD pickups, loading up the cargo-bed with a lot of weight will help some....but that, of course, uses a lot more gas and taxes the drivetrain and suspension.

bitkahuna

iTrader: (20)

well, if the snow is that bad but not a huge season (like mountains in colorado for example), stay home.

road clearing has also improved a lot, and so even if you can't stay home you often don't have to wait that long for the roads to be cleared sufficiently for most any vehicle to get where it needs to.

i believe MOST people who have AWD don't need it. it's a nice to have, for sure, if you don't mind the increased weight, cost, and decreased mpg (or lexus jacked up front ride height even on the sporty gs ). audi and subaru have of course made it a key to their success and the cost/efficiency is somewhat improved because they make so many awd vehicles.

and i do speak from experience - living at one time in pennsylvania with a subaru, and sure, the awd gave confidence and sure-footedness in snow and rain.

ted920

Mike, what are your thoughts on the GMC Terrain 2012 4 cylinder with a lot of options. I can get it for $34,000 w/ tax and fees.

How good is a 2012 GLK350 and should I consider that as well in comparison to a GMC or the Escape?

Thanks.

mmarshall

Haven't formally reviewed or test-driven one, but, like many newer GM vehicles, it seems to have a better interior, fit/finish, and overall assembly-quality than its predecessors. From what I can tell, it also plays second-fiddle to the Chevy Equinox in sales, so GMC dealers may have more reasons to discount it.

I reviewed a new GLK a couple of years ago (it basically hasn't changed since then). I found its structure ((frame, doors, etc...) very solid (more-so then the more-expensive GL), and the vehicle generally pleasant to drive. When I first did the review, it was showing promising reliability, but since then, reliablity has dropped significantly, according to Consumer Reports.

https://www.clublexus.com/forums/car...cedes-glk.html

Sure. Anytime.

ted920

Mike:

Thank you for the thorough and TIMELY review and response - I really appreciate it.

I love reading your reviews, you do a great job on them and the info is most useful. Quite frankly your reviews are an outstanding feature oft his website. Honest, detailed, and useful review for the car buying / leasing public.

Again, Thanks.

mmarshall

Sure...anytime, ted. Glad you enjoy them.

I've been a little lax getting them out for the last couple of months, but that's because most of the vehicles I have review-requests for still haven't been released in the D.C. area.