Originally Posted By: Silk
Why Does America Hate Wagons?
- Thread starter dareo
- Start date
- Status
Originally Posted By: dareo
That E63 is one sick wagon! My V8 540 wagon was fast but that would be a whole other world of speed. That E63 is perfect for driving around looking classy and if needs be throwing down. People always moved around me at stop lights thinking my wagon wouldn't move off the line. They were always surprised when my BMW dusted them soundly. It has the power and the traction. My Golf will just spin its little LRR tires if i goose it too much.
Interestingly the Mercedes station wagons are bought by the highest net worth demographic that buys Mercedes.
Off the top of my head their average net worth is $5m, compared to an average of $1.4m for a CL,S, or SL buyer. IE the more expensive models.
Mercedes attributes this to the way the wagons are typically used. As 3-15th cars at vacation homes.
That E63 is one sick wagon! My V8 540 wagon was fast but that would be a whole other world of speed. That E63 is perfect for driving around looking classy and if needs be throwing down. People always moved around me at stop lights thinking my wagon wouldn't move off the line. They were always surprised when my BMW dusted them soundly. It has the power and the traction. My Golf will just spin its little LRR tires if i goose it too much.
Interestingly the Mercedes station wagons are bought by the highest net worth demographic that buys Mercedes.
Off the top of my head their average net worth is $5m, compared to an average of $1.4m for a CL,S, or SL buyer. IE the more expensive models.
Mercedes attributes this to the way the wagons are typically used. As 3-15th cars at vacation homes.
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: dareo
I love my golf sportwagen, and i love wagons in general, and i am an American. I just don't know what is wrong with the rest of the population when it comes to car taste.
Why not buy a wagon? The only logical answer is the SUV. Something like a Honda CRV sells in one day what VW sells in a month. I understand the SUV appeal. Its a tall wagon with more ground clearance. But it seems like if people aren't buying an SUV they end up buying a sedan. This is where i get confused. Why do people opt for a car that has had the rear cargo area butchered and shrunk down into a little trunk?
The sled is the first wagon I've owned. I nearly bought a S70 instead, but got to thinking more and more about the full size roof rack and lonngggg flat sheltered bed of a wagon. Both had turbo motors and very similar handling. I put both through a series of S-turns and sudden avoidance manuevers at speed. (Should have seen the salesmans face...even when pre-warned). That convinced me. Very stable in such conditions, don't even have to think twice.
It'll handle 5 full-size adults comfortably in very confortable seats, gets great gas mileage, and will haul the mail with the turbo-motor. Right past the big, wide, fat-butt SUV's hogging the road, checking their email, texting, and watching movies instead of DRIVING!
I easily carry my kayak and 4' x 8' sheets of plywood & sheetrock upstairs on the rack. No worries. And I can easily reach it with my feet on the ground to boot.
The turbo-powered Sled is indeed a Sleeper that does a lot of things well, designed & built by a company long known for excellent wagons. What a shame the rules forced them to stop USA sales.
CAFE has become a hedeous monster according to the link posted earlier.
Quote:
Before we can delve into the demise of compact trucks, we need to examine how the footprint formula works, and how it allowed the car-based crossover to usurp the station wagon as America’s family hauler of choice.
.
.
A concrete example of this phenomenon is Volvo’s decision to do away with the traditional wagon at the start of this decade. Wagons are what put Volvo on the map in North America. The rear-drive 200, 700 and 900 wagons held universal appeal for their durability and sportiness, while the 850 and V70 cemented their place in the mainstream, as a car for those who were upper-middle class, or aspiring to be.
Volvo’s current lineup offers two SUVs, the XC60 and XC90 and one pseudo-wagon, the XC70. The XC70 is virtually identical to the V70, Volvo’s stalwart station wagon, save for some extra ground clearance and lower body cladding. But while the V70 was classified as a passenger car, the XC70 joins its siblings as a “sports utility vehicle” according to the EPA. The fuel economy of the entire XC lineup is far from stellar. The best XC models, the front drive variants of the XC60 and XC70 with the naturally aspirated 3.2L inline-six engine, return 19/25 mpg IRL. The V70, in 2010 (its final year of sale for North America) returned 18/27 mpg IRL. All three vehicles have footprints of 48 square feet. The key difference is that while the V70 is a passenger car, the XC models are light trucks, and of course, given an easier time regarding CAFE compliance.
.
.
CAFE’s other victim is the compact truck segment. Many consumers don’t need a full-size truck (whether they acknowledge it or not), and the Ford Ranger, along with GM’s own compact pickups, had respectable followings among consumers looking for a smaller fuel-efficient pickup.
But the Ranger happens to fall into the “dead zone” of the CAFE footprint formula. Both curve graphs show a flat line at 55 square feet; in practical terms, a Mercedes-Benz S-Class carries this footprint. The Ranger, even in SuperCab configuration, has a footprint of 50 square feet, just short of the magic number. The best Ranger, fuel economy-wise, was a 4-cylinder manual truck, returning 22/27 mpg IRL; a respectable number, but one only available in a configuration that a minority of buyers would opt for. Equipped with a V6 and an automatic transmission, it would only return 14/18 mpg IRL, a figure that can be equalled by certain version of Ford’s V6 and V8 F-150 full-size pickups. By 2025, a theoretical Ranger with a footprint of 50 square feet would have to achieve fuel economy somewhere approaching 50 mpg CAFE. The 75 square foot F-150 would only have to reach in the high 30s CAFE.
.
.
On the other hand, a consumption tax related to the profligacy of their vehicle would be disastrous to the Big Three. Full-size trucks, rather than cars, are the profit-makers for the Big Three, and no segment has more to lose from tough CAFE standards. The official line is that the big pickups and SUVs have to make up the most ground when it comes to fuel economy, so they are given more leeway with the regulations.
But the reality is that Detroit’s car makers need trucks to be affordable to stay in business. CAFE compliance for full-size trucks is a major topic in the auto industry, with concerns about rising costs being a major bugaboo for the Big Three. Ford is said to be moving to an aluminum body for the next F-150, while various reports have claimed that compliance with CAFE 2025 standards could add as much as $15,000 to the cost of a full-size truck. This kind of financial burden would make pickup trucks unaffordable to a significant portion of its customer base, and erode a massive source of profits for American automakers. As Niedermeyer noted, full size trucks would “…become a purely professional purchase, bought only by those who use them for work or by the wealthy.” A European-style consumption tax based on emissions of fuel efficiency would be devastating for the full-sized truck market, and it’s hardly a coincidence that CAFE is structured in such a way that best protects these vehicles.
.
.
I love my golf sportwagen, and i love wagons in general, and i am an American. I just don't know what is wrong with the rest of the population when it comes to car taste.
Why not buy a wagon? The only logical answer is the SUV. Something like a Honda CRV sells in one day what VW sells in a month. I understand the SUV appeal. Its a tall wagon with more ground clearance. But it seems like if people aren't buying an SUV they end up buying a sedan. This is where i get confused. Why do people opt for a car that has had the rear cargo area butchered and shrunk down into a little trunk?
The sled is the first wagon I've owned. I nearly bought a S70 instead, but got to thinking more and more about the full size roof rack and lonngggg flat sheltered bed of a wagon. Both had turbo motors and very similar handling. I put both through a series of S-turns and sudden avoidance manuevers at speed. (Should have seen the salesmans face...even when pre-warned). That convinced me. Very stable in such conditions, don't even have to think twice.
It'll handle 5 full-size adults comfortably in very confortable seats, gets great gas mileage, and will haul the mail with the turbo-motor. Right past the big, wide, fat-butt SUV's hogging the road, checking their email, texting, and watching movies instead of DRIVING!
I easily carry my kayak and 4' x 8' sheets of plywood & sheetrock upstairs on the rack. No worries. And I can easily reach it with my feet on the ground to boot.
The turbo-powered Sled is indeed a Sleeper that does a lot of things well, designed & built by a company long known for excellent wagons. What a shame the rules forced them to stop USA sales.
CAFE has become a hedeous monster according to the link posted earlier.
Quote:
Before we can delve into the demise of compact trucks, we need to examine how the footprint formula works, and how it allowed the car-based crossover to usurp the station wagon as America’s family hauler of choice.
.
.
A concrete example of this phenomenon is Volvo’s decision to do away with the traditional wagon at the start of this decade. Wagons are what put Volvo on the map in North America. The rear-drive 200, 700 and 900 wagons held universal appeal for their durability and sportiness, while the 850 and V70 cemented their place in the mainstream, as a car for those who were upper-middle class, or aspiring to be.
Volvo’s current lineup offers two SUVs, the XC60 and XC90 and one pseudo-wagon, the XC70. The XC70 is virtually identical to the V70, Volvo’s stalwart station wagon, save for some extra ground clearance and lower body cladding. But while the V70 was classified as a passenger car, the XC70 joins its siblings as a “sports utility vehicle” according to the EPA. The fuel economy of the entire XC lineup is far from stellar. The best XC models, the front drive variants of the XC60 and XC70 with the naturally aspirated 3.2L inline-six engine, return 19/25 mpg IRL. The V70, in 2010 (its final year of sale for North America) returned 18/27 mpg IRL. All three vehicles have footprints of 48 square feet. The key difference is that while the V70 is a passenger car, the XC models are light trucks, and of course, given an easier time regarding CAFE compliance.
.
.
CAFE’s other victim is the compact truck segment. Many consumers don’t need a full-size truck (whether they acknowledge it or not), and the Ford Ranger, along with GM’s own compact pickups, had respectable followings among consumers looking for a smaller fuel-efficient pickup.
But the Ranger happens to fall into the “dead zone” of the CAFE footprint formula. Both curve graphs show a flat line at 55 square feet; in practical terms, a Mercedes-Benz S-Class carries this footprint. The Ranger, even in SuperCab configuration, has a footprint of 50 square feet, just short of the magic number. The best Ranger, fuel economy-wise, was a 4-cylinder manual truck, returning 22/27 mpg IRL; a respectable number, but one only available in a configuration that a minority of buyers would opt for. Equipped with a V6 and an automatic transmission, it would only return 14/18 mpg IRL, a figure that can be equalled by certain version of Ford’s V6 and V8 F-150 full-size pickups. By 2025, a theoretical Ranger with a footprint of 50 square feet would have to achieve fuel economy somewhere approaching 50 mpg CAFE. The 75 square foot F-150 would only have to reach in the high 30s CAFE.
.
.
On the other hand, a consumption tax related to the profligacy of their vehicle would be disastrous to the Big Three. Full-size trucks, rather than cars, are the profit-makers for the Big Three, and no segment has more to lose from tough CAFE standards. The official line is that the big pickups and SUVs have to make up the most ground when it comes to fuel economy, so they are given more leeway with the regulations.
But the reality is that Detroit’s car makers need trucks to be affordable to stay in business. CAFE compliance for full-size trucks is a major topic in the auto industry, with concerns about rising costs being a major bugaboo for the Big Three. Ford is said to be moving to an aluminum body for the next F-150, while various reports have claimed that compliance with CAFE 2025 standards could add as much as $15,000 to the cost of a full-size truck. This kind of financial burden would make pickup trucks unaffordable to a significant portion of its customer base, and erode a massive source of profits for American automakers. As Niedermeyer noted, full size trucks would “…become a purely professional purchase, bought only by those who use them for work or by the wealthy.” A European-style consumption tax based on emissions of fuel efficiency would be devastating for the full-sized truck market, and it’s hardly a coincidence that CAFE is structured in such a way that best protects these vehicles.
.
.
Originally Posted By: bbhero
It's about appearance.... SUVs and CUVs just look a lot better. Yes, the higher ground clearance helps if going off the beaten path or in areas that get deeper snowfalls over 10 inches. But really it most likely has to do with appearances.
I agree with the idea that SUVs are just glorified station wagons... That's EXACTLY right.
People seem to think SUVs are cool...I never understood why...
It's about appearance.... SUVs and CUVs just look a lot better. Yes, the higher ground clearance helps if going off the beaten path or in areas that get deeper snowfalls over 10 inches. But really it most likely has to do with appearances.
I agree with the idea that SUVs are just glorified station wagons... That's EXACTLY right.
People seem to think SUVs are cool...I never understood why...
Originally Posted By: andyd
Heh heh for a brief time in the early 80s I had a faux wood bile green metallic '75 LTD with a very tired 460 in it. I also had a right sized '73 Torino Squire with a very nice Cleavland. Ford stopped making wagons around '87. The Caprice about '95 and it was a ***** blob at the end.
Ford built the Country Squire and Colony Park until 1991, and the Taurus wagon to 2006. The Caprice & Roadmaster ran to 1996, as did the FWD Olds Cutlass Cruiser & Buick Century.
Heh heh for a brief time in the early 80s I had a faux wood bile green metallic '75 LTD with a very tired 460 in it. I also had a right sized '73 Torino Squire with a very nice Cleavland. Ford stopped making wagons around '87. The Caprice about '95 and it was a ***** blob at the end.
Ford built the Country Squire and Colony Park until 1991, and the Taurus wagon to 2006. The Caprice & Roadmaster ran to 1996, as did the FWD Olds Cutlass Cruiser & Buick Century.
Originally Posted By: dishdude
Originally Posted By: spasm3
Cafe killed the wagons, plenty of families had big station wagons up until the 80's.
Buick estate wagons had 3row seats, you could fit the family , tow the travel trailer,( they were heavy, low center of gravity and towed a travel trailer better than a 4wd truck or suv.) dogs and stuff. But the cafe fuel mileage killed them, and made the SUV popular over the small wagons.
No way, minivans killed wagons, and SUVs killed minivans. CAFE had nothing to do with it, it was just a change of taste in the vehicles Americans decided to buy.
No, that's wrong...because, for CAFE, minivans are trucks. (Heck, the PT Cruiser and Magnum are "trucks".
Originally Posted By: spasm3
Cafe killed the wagons, plenty of families had big station wagons up until the 80's.
Buick estate wagons had 3row seats, you could fit the family , tow the travel trailer,( they were heavy, low center of gravity and towed a travel trailer better than a 4wd truck or suv.) dogs and stuff. But the cafe fuel mileage killed them, and made the SUV popular over the small wagons.
No way, minivans killed wagons, and SUVs killed minivans. CAFE had nothing to do with it, it was just a change of taste in the vehicles Americans decided to buy.
No, that's wrong...because, for CAFE, minivans are trucks. (Heck, the PT Cruiser and Magnum are "trucks".
Originally Posted By: d00df00d
Originally Posted By: aquariuscsm
The "SUV" is nothing more than the modern day station wagon.
Except its ride, handling, fuel economy, running costs, acceleration, and braking are all worse than an equivalently engineered wagon's would be. And they make the roads less safe for everyone else.
SUVs are for three things:
1. Towing
2. Off-roading
3. Dealing with physiological issues that make lower vehicles harder to get in and out of
If you do those things, then you're living in the golden age. Buy your SUV and enjoy it. But you're the minority. Most people who buy SUVs do it for the sake of image, or because of a perception of safety. That's why so many SUVs are so mediocre at the things SUVs are supposed to be good at -- they're made for people who should have bought something else, but didn't want to because reasons.
Actually, no...many SUVs are built for something else. 165MPH, anyone?
Or 175?
Note: the Cayenne Turbo-all 5300lbs of it-breaks 8 minutes on the 'Ring!
Originally Posted By: aquariuscsm
The "SUV" is nothing more than the modern day station wagon.
Except its ride, handling, fuel economy, running costs, acceleration, and braking are all worse than an equivalently engineered wagon's would be. And they make the roads less safe for everyone else.
SUVs are for three things:
1. Towing
2. Off-roading
3. Dealing with physiological issues that make lower vehicles harder to get in and out of
If you do those things, then you're living in the golden age. Buy your SUV and enjoy it. But you're the minority. Most people who buy SUVs do it for the sake of image, or because of a perception of safety. That's why so many SUVs are so mediocre at the things SUVs are supposed to be good at -- they're made for people who should have bought something else, but didn't want to because reasons.
Actually, no...many SUVs are built for something else. 165MPH, anyone?
Or 175?
Note: the Cayenne Turbo-all 5300lbs of it-breaks 8 minutes on the 'Ring!
- Joined
- Dec 30, 2006
- Messages
- 29,558
Originally Posted By: Miller88
Originally Posted By: eljefino
Originally Posted By: aquariuscsm
"SUV's" are geared towards women. It's the estrogen infused "hip" vehicle for the soccer mom set. They need something to tote their rugrats and all their "mom" stuff in,but don't wanna look square and uncool. It's hilarious now how so many soccer mom mobiles that are piloted by middle aged moms are all covered in pink hunting gear brand stickers haha.
Since I was a kid they passed laws that kids under 4' 9" have to be in booster seats and the front passenger seat is forbidden for under 12-year-olds. This has somewhat enlarged the typical family vehicle... need a higher roofline to attend to bigger kids and ill-fitting seat belts longer.
Though a short wheelbase Caravan 4 cyl would fit this bill.
I did like my shorty 97 olds Silhouette.
The way things are now, you have to be in a carseat until you are 18.
When we were little kids,we'd lay down and ride in the "back dash" under the rear window.
Originally Posted By: eljefino
Originally Posted By: aquariuscsm
"SUV's" are geared towards women. It's the estrogen infused "hip" vehicle for the soccer mom set. They need something to tote their rugrats and all their "mom" stuff in,but don't wanna look square and uncool. It's hilarious now how so many soccer mom mobiles that are piloted by middle aged moms are all covered in pink hunting gear brand stickers haha.
Since I was a kid they passed laws that kids under 4' 9" have to be in booster seats and the front passenger seat is forbidden for under 12-year-olds. This has somewhat enlarged the typical family vehicle... need a higher roofline to attend to bigger kids and ill-fitting seat belts longer.
Though a short wheelbase Caravan 4 cyl would fit this bill.
I did like my shorty 97 olds Silhouette.
The way things are now, you have to be in a carseat until you are 18.
When we were little kids,we'd lay down and ride in the "back dash" under the rear window.
Originally Posted By: eljefino
Originally Posted By: aquariuscsm
"SUV's" are geared towards women. It's the estrogen infused "hip" vehicle for the soccer mom set. They need something to tote their rugrats and all their "mom" stuff in,but don't wanna look square and uncool. It's hilarious now how so many soccer mom mobiles that are piloted by middle aged moms are all covered in pink hunting gear brand stickers haha.
Since I was a kid they passed laws that kids under 4' 9" have to be in booster seats and the front passenger seat is forbidden for under 12-year-olds. This has somewhat enlarged the typical family vehicle... need a higher roofline to attend to bigger kids and ill-fitting seat belts longer.
Though a short wheelbase Caravan 4 cyl would fit this bill.
I did like my shorty 97 olds Silhouette.
I'm not sure ANY new cars will accommodate three booster seats in the back! (Though I think a Crown Vic would.)
Another issue: many cars built in the last ~15 years have low rooflines. The result is that tall people are CROWDED. I work with a guy that is very tall...he simply doesn't FIT in most cars! (Even his son's 300 is a tight fit.)
Originally Posted By: aquariuscsm
"SUV's" are geared towards women. It's the estrogen infused "hip" vehicle for the soccer mom set. They need something to tote their rugrats and all their "mom" stuff in,but don't wanna look square and uncool. It's hilarious now how so many soccer mom mobiles that are piloted by middle aged moms are all covered in pink hunting gear brand stickers haha.
Since I was a kid they passed laws that kids under 4' 9" have to be in booster seats and the front passenger seat is forbidden for under 12-year-olds. This has somewhat enlarged the typical family vehicle... need a higher roofline to attend to bigger kids and ill-fitting seat belts longer.
Though a short wheelbase Caravan 4 cyl would fit this bill.
I did like my shorty 97 olds Silhouette.
I'm not sure ANY new cars will accommodate three booster seats in the back! (Though I think a Crown Vic would.)
Another issue: many cars built in the last ~15 years have low rooflines. The result is that tall people are CROWDED. I work with a guy that is very tall...he simply doesn't FIT in most cars! (Even his son's 300 is a tight fit.)
Originally Posted By: Miller88
Originally Posted By: eljefino
Originally Posted By: aquariuscsm
"SUV's" are geared towards women. It's the estrogen infused "hip" vehicle for the soccer mom set. They need something to tote their rugrats and all their "mom" stuff in,but don't wanna look square and uncool. It's hilarious now how so many soccer mom mobiles that are piloted by middle aged moms are all covered in pink hunting gear brand stickers haha.
Since I was a kid they passed laws that kids under 4' 9" have to be in booster seats and the front passenger seat is forbidden for under 12-year-olds. This has somewhat enlarged the typical family vehicle... need a higher roofline to attend to bigger kids and ill-fitting seat belts longer.
Though a short wheelbase Caravan 4 cyl would fit this bill.
I did like my shorty 97 olds Silhouette.
The way things are now, you have to be in a carseat until you are 18.
Technically, the way laws are written now, my wife's best friend WOULD have been required to use a booster until she was 18. She was not tall enough at the time...still isn't and never will be, in fact. (She is 4'5".) Heck, my brother didn't hit 5' until high school.
Originally Posted By: eljefino
Originally Posted By: aquariuscsm
"SUV's" are geared towards women. It's the estrogen infused "hip" vehicle for the soccer mom set. They need something to tote their rugrats and all their "mom" stuff in,but don't wanna look square and uncool. It's hilarious now how so many soccer mom mobiles that are piloted by middle aged moms are all covered in pink hunting gear brand stickers haha.
Since I was a kid they passed laws that kids under 4' 9" have to be in booster seats and the front passenger seat is forbidden for under 12-year-olds. This has somewhat enlarged the typical family vehicle... need a higher roofline to attend to bigger kids and ill-fitting seat belts longer.
Though a short wheelbase Caravan 4 cyl would fit this bill.
I did like my shorty 97 olds Silhouette.
The way things are now, you have to be in a carseat until you are 18.
Technically, the way laws are written now, my wife's best friend WOULD have been required to use a booster until she was 18. She was not tall enough at the time...still isn't and never will be, in fact. (She is 4'5".) Heck, my brother didn't hit 5' until high school.
Originally Posted By: aquariuscsm
Originally Posted By: Miller88
The way things are now, you have to be in a carseat until you are 18.
When we were little kids,we'd lay down and ride in the "back dash" under the rear window.
We've got those laws down here in Oz too...three kids means needing three rows, although I HAVE seen a lady pull it off in a commodore, unloading and loading seats around the central child (I seriously doubt that the central kid would be retrievable in an emergency).
This was the main family wagon we had growing up...parents would be shot at the side of the road for travelling at 90mph 7 people in the car like we often did.
Renault 16...
https://group.renault.com/en/news/blog-r...the-renault-16/
Originally Posted By: Miller88
The way things are now, you have to be in a carseat until you are 18.
When we were little kids,we'd lay down and ride in the "back dash" under the rear window.
We've got those laws down here in Oz too...three kids means needing three rows, although I HAVE seen a lady pull it off in a commodore, unloading and loading seats around the central child (I seriously doubt that the central kid would be retrievable in an emergency).
This was the main family wagon we had growing up...parents would be shot at the side of the road for travelling at 90mph 7 people in the car like we often did.
Renault 16...
https://group.renault.com/en/news/blog-r...the-renault-16/
Last edited:
The English version was the Austim Maxi. They were a pretty useful vehicle. My grandaughter told me she doesn't need a booster seat anymore, but she still has to sit in the back...makes my built in booster in the Volvo redundant. When we had 4 kids and needed a 6 seater, I didn't want a minivan, so got an XC Falcon station wagon, way more cool in all our opinions.
We didn't get the Nomad - I think the BMC dealers here took one look at it, and said ''No, I think they can keep that one.''
Just checked on Wiki - you didn't get the Maxi, you got the Aussie built Nomad which was smaller.
Just checked on Wiki - you didn't get the Maxi, you got the Aussie built Nomad which was smaller.
Last edited:
I drove my 87 Volvo 740 Turbo wagon for 370K miles. Did a few fuel mileage and performance mods on her due to long trips and the need for better mileage. Lowered it, swapped out the 3.90 rear end and automatic for a four speed with electric OD and 3.31 rear gears. Originally I would get 325-340 miles per (60L 15.8 gal) tank, after the mods I jumped up to 425 miles per tank on the highway. Added bigger sway bars, Bilstein shocks and a Saab APC boost management system for fun. Rocker switch for the APC off 7.5 psi of boost, rocker switch on 12.5 psi.
- Joined
- Dec 30, 2006
- Messages
- 29,558
Originally Posted By: ALS
I drove my 87 Volvo 740 Turbo wagon for 370K miles. Did a few fuel mileage and performance mods on her due to long trips and the need for better mileage. Lowered it, swapped out the 3.90 rear end and automatic for a four speed with electric OD and 3.31 rear gears. Originally I would get 325-340 miles per (60L 15.8 gal) tank, after the mods I jumped up to 425 miles per tank on the highway. Added bigger sway bars, Bilstein shocks and a Saab APC boost management system for fun. Rocker switch for the APC off 7.5 psi of boost, rocker switch on 12.5 psi.
That's an awesome looking wagon! Looks really ahead of its time,and would look right at home driving down the roads today. Great color too!
I drove my 87 Volvo 740 Turbo wagon for 370K miles. Did a few fuel mileage and performance mods on her due to long trips and the need for better mileage. Lowered it, swapped out the 3.90 rear end and automatic for a four speed with electric OD and 3.31 rear gears. Originally I would get 325-340 miles per (60L 15.8 gal) tank, after the mods I jumped up to 425 miles per tank on the highway. Added bigger sway bars, Bilstein shocks and a Saab APC boost management system for fun. Rocker switch for the APC off 7.5 psi of boost, rocker switch on 12.5 psi.
That's an awesome looking wagon! Looks really ahead of its time,and would look right at home driving down the roads today. Great color too!
Great looking wagon there ALS!
Originally Posted By: Jarlaxle
Note: the Cayenne Turbo-all 5300lbs of it-breaks 8 minutes on the 'Ring!
Now try that with one you bought from the dealer. You can't trust any of the 'ring times' because none of the vehicles is like you or I buy them.
Note: the Cayenne Turbo-all 5300lbs of it-breaks 8 minutes on the 'Ring!
Now try that with one you bought from the dealer. You can't trust any of the 'ring times' because none of the vehicles is like you or I buy them.
- Status
