Printable View
Sad news! Change is here for all VX loyalists.
Currently, I have 128K trouble-free miles on my VX, and love my '99 IRONMAN -- and, like most high-mileage VehiCROSS owner/drivers, I must contemplate a sensible migration to my next favorite:
http://www.toyota.com/html/shop/look_ahead/
Where are you folks going? Let us know...
Randy Barlow
I don't know about that exhaust pipe hanging in front of the rear wheel on the drivers side and running exposed...... also, the mirrors would get knocked off in offroading unless they bent forward and backward like on our VX's...... I am sure it is capable of something with the proper mods, but the VX is way more capable.
I got all hyped up about that RSC concept vehicle and Toyota stated that it would NOT go into production. I then found out that it would be based on a RAV 4 chassis...not exactly in the same league as the VX for off-road worthiness. I still love the looks...but until they say it will be produced...not worth bothering over.
I wouldn't trade the VX for it...but, it would make a nice garage mate and be good to commute to work and back!
128K miles and you're looking for a replacement?!?! You've obviously never owned an Isuzu before! Your VX is barely out of adolescence!:bgwg:
I have 25K on my "99 Ironman, so I have some time, right ? ;py;
I've been thinking about that FJ Cruiser myself. Of course, I'm still keeping the VX as well. I think the timing will be just about right when it's released...
-- John
I’m looking for an ‘01 VX to carry on the craziness for the immediate future and then will add a Cayenne TwinTurbo - it is a more capable successor to the VX but unfortunately without all the cool looks. With the right paint and mods, it could be a looker and have no problems in Moab. I’ve driven it on and offroad and it is everything the VX is and more - better four wheel drive system and waaaaaaaay more power with plenty of clearance and good departure / approach angles.
I really like the look of the FJ Cruiser. Hell, there are a lot of autos out there that I would like to test.
Don't be discouraged... everyone on here likes there VX. Any board you are on will have people thinking you are crazy for looking at anything other than the auto that the board is modeled after.
Gonna keep my VX until it or I die.
I will add the Infiniti FX-45 to the stable.
Anita, I second everything you said!Quote:
Originally posted by Anita
Gonna keep my VX until it or I die.
I will add the Infiniti FX-45 to the stable.
Heck, I wanna be buried in my VX
Maybe we could start an FX45 club.
The FX45 is a matured VX. Love it!
No Migration here, Lets just say it will be an addition to a pre existing Addiction.
Oh yeah and my other dream car the first being the VX
http://www.ultimatecarpage.com/large/512-2.jpg
I too love the FX but this Hamann Cayenne looks Amazing!...
http://www.flat-6.net/phpBB/uploads/17798948.jpg
Shoot! I work for toyota in Arizona and if they ever release that truck I will be the first here to own both the VX and the RSC concept vehicle. ;Dr; Sorry guys! LOL! But the toyota way is more like "research ir for 3 yrs then release it...":mad:
Yeah, imagine if they had researched the VX for 3 years. Then they'd be really awesome! I mean as it stands now, it does have some things lacking for such an originally pricey ride. My last car's doors locked 30 seconds after you entered the vehicle. The VX's stay unlocked unless you manually lock them. You can't lock the glovebox and it has no light in it. No power seat adjustments (downward would be nice). No window locks. Etc. Hey, I adore my rugged, no-frills (well in some ways) VX. The lack of a rear door popper isn't a big deal to me because most SUVs and vans don't have that either... that's generally a trunk (as in CAR) thing. Would be nice but not expected anyway. Granted none of them are a big deal and how lazy do you have to be to get all riled up about some of these issues, but for such an otherwise high-caliber vehicle there are certain things you would expect it to have that it does not. It's awesome and a lot of bang for the buck still, but could have been even better. More things could go wrong with that extra fancy stuff too, though, so probably best left off a limited production vehicle. <shrug>
I personally love the RSC design and while I prefer it I'm not someone who just absolutely has to have great off-road capabilities, but from all I hear the RSC would have been a sheep in wolf's clothing from several perspectives. I think we'll see a reincarnation of it soon though that WILL hit production.
Tone, you mean the Porsche? Capable how? Off-road? Or do you mean from an accleration standpoint? If I were about strictly speed and nothing else, I'd be in a Murano with its silly little exhaust pipes. Actually, I'd still be in a car. And my last one would've been a WS-6 Firebird or Mustang GT or the like and not an Avenger ES (which is a better all-around car, but not the fastest).
Dude, you don't like the Porche? The way I look at it is that it's the only other SUV besides the VX I'd want! Those things are quick (13.5-1/4 mile) and I bet it "could" be equiped for offroad. They just cost 3 times more than a VX, which is rediculous. For over $60,000 it better come with guns or missiles! ;)Quote:
Originally posted by Heraclid
Tone, you mean the Porsche? Capable how? Off-road? Or do you mean from an accleration standpoint?
There has never been a Porsche that did anything for me in the looks department. And the Cayenne isn't anything to write home about in that regard either if you ask me. Everybody and their second cousin is out with an SUV now, and most aren't anything special. I think Porsche joining the fray was tacky, but I'll give 'em this - it will scoot in a field of mostly underpowered sport-utes. Actually a lot of them like the CRV, Vitara and RAV-4 don't qualify as sport-utes in my view, but...
I also think the Infiniti is real ugly. I go by a dealership with them daily and it sure isn't growing on me. Sorry, but that's just me. I would never buy something I thought was ugly just for the name on it. I'm not someone who is purely after a status symbol and the heck with the rest. Nuh uh. I have to like it. Me. What the rest of you think it looks like, cost me, or whatever is very secondary.
I liked the RSC on looks. It was too busy... needed just a little toning down. I expect that in concepts though.
I do like the Murano from some angles, don't like the front too much. But I am probably in the same boat with you in that if there were not VehiCrosses I would not be in a SUV right now.
I seem to remember a lot of people asking this about the VX as well... before test driving it, or seeing what it WAS capable of.Quote:
Originally posted by Heraclid
Tone, you mean the Porsche? Capable how? Off-road? Or do you mean from an accleration standpoint?
I admit I don't know jack about the Porsche Cayenne. If I wanted to I would. I am perhaps a bit guilty of underestimating it, but keep in mind I was thinking mostly in terms of off-road performance. It HAS to be fast, after all - it's a Porsche! It's expected of them. I still think it is probably suited to a certain crowd and probably has to make some sacrifices in order to be "refined'. But I haven't read any reviews, so I don't know to what extent that is true. The Touareg by VW is the sleeper off-roader I think. Low-range transfer case and an air suspension with adjustable ride height.
Then it's probably safe to say that you don't have enough info to pass judgement.Quote:
Originally posted by Heraclid
I admit I don't know jack about the Porsche Cayenne.
Personally, yes... the Cayene is fast... but to me, a truck-like Porsche is just not right and it doesn't look right. Even the VW variant, the Tourag, with it's more conventional SUV looks still doesn't look right to me. Something odd about the proportions. Granted, technically, both vehicles are pretty impressive. I don't believe in do-all, be-all anything. A sporty truck will never match a thorough-bred sports car. Likewise, a high riding 4wd thorough-bred sports car (even a rally car) can never match a purpose built truck. You can't carve canyons in a truck like you can with a sports car... and you can't go rock crawling or river fording with a rally car. For those who just like cars... you have to have at least one of each. :)
Paul, I didn't say it sucked. I just don't like it looks-wise. I feel like you do about Porsche-like trucks.
I stated that I had my suspicions about it - I did not however present them as the gospel truth about the thing. Just a gut feeling.
Add me to the fx-45 list of lovers . Only five more years and this baby is paid for. Keep her forever add the fx-45 .:p
That FJ looks like a H2 Hummer rear ended a Jeep full of Smurfs. They might have wanted to put a different color on the website for their example. Looks like it has some cool features though.
Umm... there's a reason why the FJ concept is done in those colors. It's the color of the original FJ40. I love the FJ40 and I have no problems with those colors.
My dad had an FJ-40 when I was but a boy...he bought it used and it had a chevy 6 cyl. in it. He called it his "chevota"...lol.
I got to admit that I miss the fun we had in it. Don't know if this concept is up to truly bringing back or otherwise capturing the
essense of the original or not...but for nothing else it at the very least reminds one of the original. Also was designed to compete against the H2...that much has been devulged. I do like how the rear doors are incorporated to give a 2-door look yet offer the ease of rear-entry of a 4-door. I hate the look of crew-cabs! Was the biggest complaint I had about the Avalanche!
Not sure how everyone missed this, but earlier in this thread I stated that the VX glovebox doesn't lock. Of course it does! Not sure what I was thinking... my work vehicle glovebox is like that. <shrug> Sorry. Guess this 5 hours of sleep isn't cutting it.
Quote:
Originally posted by Andrey
I have 25K on my "99 Ironman, so I have some time, right ? ;py;
Gee, I sure hope so! My 2000 Kaiser has yet to break the 13k mark!
....sT
Here's my migration....Volkswagen Bugatti Veyron
http://www.vwvortex.com/news/09_01/bugatti/01.jpg
Not quite the off-road capability of the VX -- but check out these specs...
1001 horses
top speed around 251 mph
0-186 mph -- 14 seconds
How fast does the VX go 0-186? ;)
The only problem is it produces so much torque it burns up every tire they've tried
to put on it. VW is hoping to have more advanced tire designs out in time to put this
monster on the market in April.
Oh, by the way.. only $1,000,000.
Pah...I'll stay with my VX -- it's cooler looking anyway.
Might have to argue with you on the "cooler looking" part - but at $1M - the VX is definately cheaper!! Did I say that? I meant the VX is a better VALUE!!
You know, there is a reason why names like Porsche or Infiniti, or even Volkswagen, that I won't mention Volvo go into the SUV business. It is not to be an off-road kings, it is to bring more customers, who otherwise would not even look at their products. What happens is - IMHO - they lower their standards to produce a car more interesting to constantly changing demand, but they also loose a lot on quality and most of all - again IMHO - their charisma, or whatever you want to name it.
My husband is completely in love with Mercedes. It was a costly brand of cars and with great reputation. It WAS. Now, as they targeting people with income below the Country Club standard, their quality of products worsens. Especially since they moved assembly line and production of over 65% (? I think that's the number) parts to U.S., Mercedes lovers grow in disappointment. Our ML320, partly maybe because it was one of the first ever on the market, is a great car, but honestly I would not buy it again, not even better model.
I think some cars, or names are not designated to be off-road cars. They should stay where they are - sports machines; fast, expensive and extravagant. Cayenne is for me kind of like a freak of nature - Porsche and dirt just don't go together if you know what I mean...
I wouldn't say Porsche, Infinity, VW, BMW, or Volvo have produced an SUV that would be considered below its own standards for an automobile. The Volvo has won numerous awards for safety and overall. Besides that, they are all pretty pricey, and I don't believe bring the brand down past any level they haven't already set for themselves. Besides that, why DO all SUVs have to be off-road worthy? Everything on this site that is compared to the VX is stompped on because "the VX would kick its ***** off road!". So what. SUV doesn't mean off road. Its a utilitarian vehicle. If people wanted an off road capable vehicle, then I hope they would be smart enough to buy one that IS capable... SUV or not.
By the way... the Mercedes SUV... I always thought looked like a puffy, near-van. I rarely like any Mercedes model. To me, it is just overpriced quasi-luxury. Even Car and Driver said of the new Cadillac CTS that it is the best of both worlds (luxury and performance), if Mercedes is classic luxury and BMW is performance.
Ultra-refined and rugged just don't go hand-in-hand beyond a certain point and then something has to give. You can get into trouble trying to do everything well and spreading yourself too thin. Besides, you can only make a high-riding SUV so sporty anyway. Hey, I'm sure it is a great vehicle in many ways and I admire the ballsy move into the SUV arena, though.
Dallas4U, that Mercedes does have the edge on the VX in a few ways, though. And I don't think an SUV should have to be excellent off-road, but it should be fairly capable and do it better than a car and be AWD. That's just my opinion though and it depends what "utility" means to you. Nothing can do it all the best, but to me a true SUV is supposed to do all of it respectably. Yet many (if not most) are underpowered and don't really do any of it all that well.
Right, and the VX definitely isn't ultra-refined. Even though the SUVs offered by the more lux brands are, I don't see why that means they are not SUVs by nature. Just because they are very nice, expensive, AND capable off road (let me know which one out of the ones listed isn't), doesn't mean they aren't worthy of the label SUV. If someone wants to spend $40k - $80k on something they "could" take off road but are too scared to scratch the paint, then it is up to them... it doesn't mean the automobile can't do the work.
You are correct about the "Utility" in SUV being a personal view as no manufacturer has really put a standard on the word. To me, SUV means a sporty vehicle developed to be used in more of a rugged manner. Trucks are trucky, cars are carish, SUVs... ???
Re: Hamann Cayenne. Hamann == German rice. :)
Re: migration. I'm in the "no migration" crowd.
http://www.vehicross.info/gallery/da...030plc-640.jpg
-Daver
Daver, is there actually a town called Wicked in MA? Cool. Is that from the witch trial days or something? :-)
Pautvx,
Mercedes ML55 AMG. The M-class flagship with a nice little 5.5L engine making about 350 horses at 3000 rpm. 376 ft. lbs torque. It has a electronic traction control system like our TOD. Does 0-60 in just a hair over 6 seconds. This is the one that has it all. Handling still suffers just because it is a tall SUV. And it gets about 13-14 mpg running on premium fuel and costs, oh, about 65K. :-) And it is probably difficult in a lot of off-road situations because it tends to be TOO torquey and needs a lot of finesse.
From what little I think I know, the Lexus RX is a decent off-roader, even though it is based on the Camry platform. The Acura MDX (based on the Honda Odyssey van?) and Mercedes M-class are better. I know the Lexus whoops the VX in horsepower and torque, though. The MDX has more horses under the hood too.
It looks to me like I missed important discussion.
I read through this time, before responding with anything slightly stupid, so let me put my thoughts together.
I stand by what I said - more brands let out cars, especially SUV, that are targeting different type of consumers, as well as they might be on a different quality level to be more reachable. In time most of them do level the quality, and the prize after all.
Speaking off prize, we can throw ridiculous numbers at each other, trying to prove me wrong, but realistically anyone with imagination, instead buying brand new Chevy Malibu for $26K, can spend the same money for two years old Land Rover. Is there any difference? You tell me.
Now, I was going to ask you Dallas4u, to define performance and then apply it to the reality, but you already admitted, you would not dare to spend well over $60K and take it on a dirt road. You got my point, and I even did not say it yet.
As for the Volvo, Dallas4u, you are absolutely right. The moment I submitted my post I realized my mistake. If I ever wanted to be a housewife with soccer team to drive every day, for safety, I want Volvo.
Now, don't get me wrong, I am not an extremist in any way. I like to admire nice cars. Even though I might not know much about specifications, and do not fanatically check every new details, my sense of reality tells me things are going in a weird direction.
Let’s take Cadillac. The great days of 50’s are gone, the clientele – delicately speaking is fading away, and so they regrouped and, amongst other models, came up with EXT. Nice car, luxury and performance for some. Even a flatbed! Huh, I want to see anyone who dares to go with this thing to Home Depot and get lumber or a few bags of mushroom compost. Luxury and performance – yes, but where is functionality???
Btw, did you know that the flatbed on EXT has a rubber lining? Try to slide anything off and you will sweat or swear, whatever comes first.
What is it that we understand under “SUV”? What is it that we want from SUV?
Speed? Go get a Corvette. You’ll do better than my friend who spend over $4000 for 22’ rims and high performance tires for his Range Rover, so he can go over 160 MPH… Not enough it looks really dumb, he gets stopped by the police at least one a week.
Then there is power and performance, and cargo space and so on, but it is late and I am tired and have no desire get myself into it ;)
Dallas4u: offense non taken as I hope you will not get mad with me now ;)Quote:
Originally posted by Dallas4u
(...)
By the way... the Mercedes SUV... I always thought looked like a puffy, near-van. I rarely like any Mercedes model. To me, it is just overpriced quasi-luxury. Even Car and Driver said of the new Cadillac CTS that it is the best of both worlds (luxury and performance), if Mercedes is classic luxury and BMW is performance.
You admitted yourself; SUV’s are becoming something undefined.
To finish my monolog for tonight, I want to mention my VX and why I love it, although in many aspects it probably sucks. Besides the fact that it simply looks good on me :bgwo: and is what it is it makes me feel safe on the road, because it’s solid. It also lets me sit a little higher then sedan (yes, there are taller SUV’s but who cares at this point?), and since I am not, tall for once I can see a lot more. It also gives me a little satisfaction, when people simply stare – what? At the end I am a woman :bgwo: . And I love the V6 with that package. And…
Now seriously, I do not think everyone here can definitely say what it is so intriguing and good about VX that makes us go crazy. Performance and luxury? Pffff…
Well, good night everyone.
p.s.
Heraclid: thank you :)
I don't plan to migrate ever. I'd loose my identity ;)
I may infact buy a yellow Honda S2000 but, I'm keeping Moncha.
As far as the SUV thing, it seems that there is no actual definition per se.
I like to think the VX as what was brought to the fore front long, long ago in one of the other forums as a PUV (Performance Utility Vehicle). I truley believe, "If it makes you happy, that's all that counts".
Pardon? I don't remember EVER saying anything to the fact that I wouldn't pay that kind of money and take an auto off road. In fact, I believe my point was that if someone DOES want to pay that kind of money and NOT take it off road, that doesn't make it any less capable.Quote:
Originally posted by yal^
but you already admitted, you would not dare to spend well over $60K and take it on a dirt road.
It's up to you. Safety doesn't have to mean the automobile is only to be used as a "soccer mom-ish" ride. Maybe that's what they meant when they handed out the awards... I don't know.Quote:
Originally posted by yal^
As for the Volvo, Dallas4u, you are absolutely right. The moment I submitted my post I realized my mistake. If I ever wanted to be a housewife with soccer team to drive every day, for safety, I want Volvo.
No argument there. I believe the EXT was based on the Avalanche, correct? Whether you call it an SUV or an SUV/truck hybrid, it's up to you. I'm sure it is still as capable as an Avalanche... maybe even more so, but whomever buys is isn't going to want to scratch it.Quote:
Originally posted by yal^
...came up with EXT. Nice car, luxury and performance for some. Even a flatbed! Huh, I want to see anyone who dares to go with this thing to Home Depot and get lumber or a few bags of mushroom compost. Luxury and performance – yes, but where is functionality???
Btw, did you know that the flatbed on EXT has a rubber lining? Try to slide anything off and you will sweat or swear, whatever comes first.
My point exactly. You can't define what an SUV is as there has never really been a standard. It has become a personal issue, and everyone thinks they know what an SUV ISQuote:
Originally posted by yal^
What is it that we want from SUV?
Speed?
None taken... you have given no reason for me to be upset! :)Quote:
Originally posted by yal^
Dallas4u: offense non taken as I hope you will not get mad with me now ;)
Again, you are correct!Quote:
Originally posted by yal^
You admitted yourself; SUV’s are becoming something undefined.
Ehh, I wouldn't go THAT far!!!Quote:
Originally posted by yal^
...although in many aspects it probably sucks.
I don't know you well enough to make that clarification.Quote:
Originally posted by yal^
...At the end I am a woman :bgwo:
I don't understand this statement, but I think you are saying for all that the VX is, it's non-luxury and unrefinement are overshadowed by its performance and good looks. If so, I agree. I bought one, correct?Quote:
Originally posted by yal^
...And I love the V6 with that package. And…
Now seriously, I do not think everyone here can definitely say what it is so intriguing and good about VX that makes us go crazy. Performance and luxury? Pffff…
Right now I say I'll keep mine forever. I've said that before though. I mean it this time. Oh, I guess I did last time too. :-) So I don't know. I think I really will hang onto it. It may have to do a lot of sitting around while the money gets saved up in order to do things with it to keep it going strong though. LOL But yeah, right now I'd say it'll still be unleashed every weekend 20 years from now.
I rather tried to make a point of the destiny that waits more of the SUV than we can ever imagine ;)Quote:
Originally posted by Dallas4u
Pardon? I don't remember EVER saying anything to the fact that I wouldn't pay that kind of money and take an auto off road. In fact, I believe my point was that if someone DOES want to pay that kind of money and NOT take it off road, that doesn't make it any less capable.
It's up to you. Safety doesn't have to mean the automobile is only to be used as a "soccer mom-ish" ride. Maybe that's what they meant when they handed out the awards... I don't know.
About capabilities of $20K vs. $80K... Please, try not to turn my words around. My point is - why the specs, performance and capabilities if you are affraid to enjoy'em?
I think there is, maybe not clear enough... Well, maybe it would be more clear if you did not cut out the Home Depo argument. It's not the performance or luxury I am at, what I do not question at all, but ridiculous in my opinion, idea here. Make a decision for crying out loud - is it a car, truck, SUV or what?Quote:
No argument there. I believe the EXT was based on the Avalanche, correct? Whether you call it an SUV or an SUV/truck hybrid, it's up to you. I'm sure it is still as capable as an Avalanche... maybe even more so, but whomever buys is isn't going to want to scratch it.
yup, I wouldn't know either. Good thing we agree here :)Quote:
My point exactly. You can't define what an SUV is as there has never really been a standard. It has become a personal issue, and everyone thinks they know what an SUV IS
I'll sleep peacfully tonight. As soon as I finish my study... Sometime tomorrow...Quote:
None taken... you have given no reason for me to be upset! :)
Hahahahaha... but listen before you start yelling at me. And smile a little. It helps sometimes... ;)Quote:
Ehh, I wouldn't go THAT far!!!
There ya go! See how easy this was ;)Quote:
I don't understand this statement, but I think you are saying for all that the VX is, it's non-luxury and unrefinement are overshadowed by its performance and good looks. If so, I agree. I bought one, correct?
And... Good night again.
Nah, it's just a dig at the natives who love to use phrases like "wicked cool".Quote:
Originally posted by Heraclid
Daver, is there actually a town called Wicked in MA? Cool. Is that from the witch trial days or something? :-)
But then, I'm originally from Connecticut, and therefore obligated to make fun of Massachusetts natives.
-Daver
I'm not turning your words around at all. The auto companies are making the SUVs... it isn't their fault someone wants to spend the money and not use them to their true capabilities. The problem is that people in the US (or all over the world) live beyond their means. I wouldn't buy a $60k SUV and not use it, even if just a little bit, off road because I can't afford to do so. Now, if $60k to someone wasn't a big deal to spend on a car, they may not think twice about taking it out in the dirt... it isn't the auto manufacturer that is keeping them from doing it.Quote:
Originally posted by yal^
About capabilities of $20K vs. $80K... Please, try not to turn my words around. My point is - why the specs, performance and capabilities if you are affraid to enjoy'em?
I didn't cut the Home Depot comment out... it's right there in plain site. It doesn't really matter, though. I think it all goes back to people buying something beyond their means. It doesn't mean it isn't capable, but why spend the money if you wont use it for its capabilities? Besides that, I would consider both the EXT and the Avalanche a truck.Quote:
Originally posted by yal^
I think there is, maybe not clear enough... Well, maybe it would be more clear if you did not cut out the Home Depo argument. It's not the performance or luxury I am at, what I do not question at all, but ridiculous in my opinion, idea here. Make a decision for crying out loud - is it a car, truck, SUV or what?
First of all, I'm not yelling. I'm not sure why you'd think I was upset by anything you or anyone else have said. I've been stating my opinions and not trying to be a jacka$$. I've agreed with much of what you said, whether you can see that or not.Quote:
Originally posted by yal^
Hahahahaha... but listen before you start yelling at me. And smile a little. It helps sometimes... ;)
Anyway, I guess we should just say (again) that determining what an SUV is would be more personal than fact. So... by saying that, I think the VX is actually a truck with a trunk!