# SUV for carrying skis



## yeggous (Jan 4, 2016)

It's time to buy a new car. I'm planning to keep my 2011 Hyundai Santa Fe and replace my wife's car.

Challenge: most cross-overs have a cargo cabin that is way too short to carry my skis without pulling up the front seat. I need suggestions!

We started back at the Hyundai and Subaru dealerships. The Santa Fe Sport is still just long enough. The Forester is decidedly too short. The Outback *might* be long enough, but it is uncomfortably close. What else do people use? I'd like to keep the sticker price under $30k, preferably closer to $25k.

I'd like to get another Santa Fe, but the wife does not like the idea at all.

I checked out the Mazda CX-5 and GMC Terrain, but both were too short.


----------



## rocks860 (Jan 4, 2016)

Why not just get a rack?
I have a Thule rack on my Impreza wagon and it works great.


----------



## yeggous (Jan 4, 2016)

rocks860 said:


> Why not just get a rack?



I want to haul about 7 pairs of skis at any given time. That would be a big rack.


----------



## drjeff (Jan 4, 2016)

The Terrain, with one of the rear seats down can easily get skis up to 170 without a problem - I had one as a rental last summer when I picked my daughter (and her 170cm GS Skis) up from summer ski camp


----------



## steamboat1 (Jan 4, 2016)

yeggous said:


> I want to haul about 7 pairs of skis at any given time. That would be a big rack.



Thule box. You'll get the 7 pairs of skis in, even boots & poles, then have enough room for 3 6ft' heroes (you guys might call them hogies, subs or grinders, have no idea). Been there done that.


----------



## gmcunni (Jan 4, 2016)

+1 on thule box.  used on craigslist are pretty reasonable.

inside subi -






roofbox on subi


----------



## andrec10 (Jan 4, 2016)

Outback!


----------



## rocks860 (Jan 4, 2016)

Yeah I was gonna say you can just throw a Thule box up there and fit everything. If you put 7 pairs of skis inside is there even room for anyone to be inside the car?


----------



## steamboat1 (Jan 4, 2016)

rocks860 said:


> Yeah I was gonna say you can just throw a Thule box up there and fit everything. If you put 7 pairs of skis inside is there even room for anyone to be inside the car?



Throw any extras in the box too.


----------



## yeggous (Jan 4, 2016)

How does the Thule rack impact fuel economy? Is it going to be a total pain to take on and off?


----------



## steamboat1 (Jan 4, 2016)

yeggous said:


> How does the Thule rack impact fuel economy? Is it going to be a total pain to take on and off?



I lost 2-3mpg highway. Left mine on all winter. Even go through the car wash with it. Haven't used it in several years now that my family doesn't ski. Sitting in my attic collecting dust.

edit. I have the longest, widest Evolution box.


----------



## rocks860 (Jan 4, 2016)

I end up just leaving the rack on all the time since I have a bike rack on there too and it's a pain to take individual pieces off and put them on. I just have a ski rack, not the box.


----------



## gmcunni (Jan 4, 2016)

some impact to MPG, don't recall.  some noise, not horrible.

two people, on and off in 5 mins.  1 person, less than 10 but i worry about dropping and scratching the paint on roof.


----------



## tnt1234 (Jan 4, 2016)

Outback will work i would think.  But with a seat down, you could only fit 4 in the car, so not sure why you would need 7 set of skis. 

I almost got a box, but did a rack instead.  Can fit 5 sets up there.  Super easy to put on, super dependable anchor system.  Love my outback.


----------



## SkiFanE (Jan 4, 2016)

I'm so happy both our cars handle our skis without Thule or racks. Kinda a pain day after day, 4-5 pairs. Getting them out of back of car is so much easier. 

We have a Mazda CX-5. One reason I chose it was the rear seat folded down 20% in the middle - so can go 60/40 or 20 out of middle. So with 4 people can still fit skiis. Not sure how long tho - but could go through the console up front I bet.  Besides that we've loved this car - the only new car that never needed to return for a warrantied fix.  Our Sienna AWD minivan is actually the best ski family vehicle ever. Handles awesome in snow and fits so much - just have to swallow your pride lmao.

**Gulp - just saw the CX-5 was too short. Did you try down the middle?  My trip to mountain is 10 minutes - depends on how long your drive is if you want them so close to you up front.


----------



## yeggous (Jan 4, 2016)

Okay, I'll indulge the roof idea. Rack vs box... I don't see a rack as wise for two reasons:
1) less capacity
2) road salt
Discuss.

My wife wants a forester. I told her it reminds me of a fish tank with all that glass. I felt the Outback was more refined.

Why would I need 7 sets of skis? Actually I'd rather carry 9 sets. I have goals. I have a quiver and would like to encourage my wife to do the same. There have been many days I show up at the mountain expecting a powder day and find a wind scoured glacier. Welcome to skiing Wildcat. Be prepared. Likewise it is wise to be ready for the surprise powder day at Jay or Bretton Woods. It happens.


----------



## yeggous (Jan 4, 2016)

SkiFanE said:


> I'm so happy both our cars handle our skis without Thule or racks. Kinda a pain day after day, 4-5 pairs. Getting them out of back of car is so much easier.
> 
> We have a Mazda CX-5. One reason I chose it was the rear seat folded down 20% in the middle - so can go 60/40 or 20 out of middle. So with 4 people can still fit skiis. Not sure how long tho - but could go through the console up front I bet.  Besides that we've loved this car - the only new car that never needed to return for a warrantied fix.  Our Sienna AWD minivan is actually the best ski family vehicle ever. Handles awesome in snow and fits so much - just have to swallow your pride lmao.



I measured the CX-5 and notice the three-part folder. The Santa Fe Sport has the same setup.

It is bad enough I am consider a station wagon in the Outback, but a minivan is a bridge too far.

I should mention that I give strong value to good navigation systems and automated driving features. Since I recently sold out and started working on these systems in the automotive industry, I feel a need to drink the kool-aid.


----------



## gmcunni (Jan 4, 2016)

yeggous said:


> Okay, I'll indulge the roof idea. Rack vs box... I don't see a rack as wise for two reasons:
> 1) less capacity
> 2) road salt
> Discuss.



i agree.

sadly i'm stuck using a rack in my jeep as i don't trust the gutter mount for a box full of stuff.  but when we take the subi we box it.


----------



## tnt1234 (Jan 4, 2016)

I think the outback is much more comfortable than the forester.

Box is probably the way to go.  Much more versatile.  I opted for rack because I don't really have anyplace to store a box, and wouldn't leave it on past spring skiing.


----------



## tnt1234 (Jan 4, 2016)

yeggous said:


> I measured the CX-5 and notice the three-part folder. The Santa Fe Sport has the same setup.
> 
> It is bad enough I am consider a station wagon in the Outback, but a minivan is a bridge too far.
> 
> I should mention that I give strong value to good navigation systems and automated driving features. Since I recently sold out and started working on these systems in the automotive industry, I feel a need to drink the kool-aid.



Outback has a solid navi system, and you can get some kind of automated stop system - I forget what they call it.  I almost went for it, but then they told me the cameras involved are sensitive to suds etc... so the dealer kind of discouraged it.  Said if you run it through a car wash, you have to be careful the cameras don't get fouled.  Or something like that....


----------



## yeggous (Jan 4, 2016)

tnt1234 said:


> Outback has a solid navi system, and you can get some kind of automated stop system - I forget what they call it.  I almost went for it, but then they told me the cameras involved are sensitive to suds etc... so the dealer kind of discouraged it.  Said if you run it through a car wash, you have to be careful the cameras don't get fouled.  Or something like that....



Glad to hear it. I work on the nav system behind Subaru and 80% of the cars in the US and Europe. I was looking at the Mazda, but walked out when I realized it has a TomTom nav system. Now that I'm developing these systems for a living, I want to have one to use on a day-to-day basis. (It turns out mapping software pays much better than weather for the insurance industry.)


----------



## Bumpsis (Jan 4, 2016)

yeggous said:


> How does the Thule rack impact fuel economy? Is it going to be a total pain to take on and off?



If you're looking for SUV that can carry 7 pairs of skis AND passengers, fuel economy is a contradictory concern here. So it's either a smaller vehicle with a container on top (Thule, Yakima) or get a Sienna Mini Van. Have one with 4 wheel drive and love it. You can pack whatever you want with ease and the fuel economy will be probably better than that of many big size SUVs. I get about 24 mpg on the highway with full cargo and 4 passengers.


----------



## yeggous (Jan 5, 2016)

Bumpsis said:


> If you're looking for SUV that can carry 7 pairs of skis AND passengers, fuel economy is a contradictory concern here. So it's either a smaller vehicle with a container on top (Thule, Yakima) or get a Sienna Mini Van. Have one with 4 wheel drive and love it. You can pack whatever you want with ease and the fuel economy will be probably better than that of many big size SUVs. I get about 24 mpg on the highway with full cargo and 4 passengers.



I am looking to carry skis with only the small half of the back seat folded down.
And without moving the front seat forward.

Sent from my iPhone using AlpineZone mobile app


----------



## soulseller (Jan 5, 2016)

I have a WRX hatch, my 186 skis fit snugly but doable. Surely an Outback or Forester offers more interior cargo space.

That being said, we bought a Yakima SkyBox this year and I love it. We have switched it back and forth between my car and the wife's Tiguan as needed, holds a metric ton of stuff and keeps the interior space clear which helps on long drives.

IMO, Yakima boxes are better then Thule, more aero, better latches and hinges, and open from both sides. We do not notice any road noise, and have observed a 1 mpg fuel economy difference.


Sent from my iPhone using AlpineZone mobile app


----------



## deadheadskier (Jan 5, 2016)

I agree with others in that the rooftop box is the best option. 

That said if you're driving with a seat folded down, I wouldn't think you'd have too much trouble fitting the skis in if you angle them.  

I drive a Mazda3 hatchback. I don't have the driver's seat all the way back, but fairly close.  I routinely drive with 2-3 sets of skis in the car ranging from 175-180cm.  Still room in the back for a third passenger if needed.  So, I would think a CX-5 while not perfect for your needs, would work.  (Navigation system preferences aside)

The other option not mentioned is what about a four passenger compact pick up truck with a cap on the back?  Something like a Toyota Tacoma or Nissan Frontier?  I would think both would be great ski vehicles, though they likely can't be had new in that configuration for under $30K.


----------



## dlague (Jan 5, 2016)

steamboat1 said:


> Thule box. You'll get the 7 pairs of skis in, even boots & poles, then have enough room for 3 6ft' heroes (you guys might call them hogies, subs or grinders, have no idea). Been there done that.



We have the Thule Evolution and fitting 7 pair of adult skis is a stretch not to mention other things you mention.  I ski on 186 skis and they are too long for the box.  As a result they go in last and lay diagonal and that tweaks it while closing.

As far as an SUV - I too have been looking at crossovers and have been wondering about that.  I currently have a full size SUV and when it involves 5 or less I can through all the gear in the back with no problems and it is way easier unloading.


Sent from my iPhone using AlpineZone


----------



## Smellytele (Jan 5, 2016)

Wife has a Traverse with 3 rows of seats. On day trips just fold 1/3 of each row of seats down. Skis fit in fine. I have a Thule box (bought it for $25 at a yard sale) for overnighters and longer trips. Never put boots in the box, only skis and poles. Have fit 6 pairs of alpine/tele skis plus 4 pairs of x-country skis with poles nothing worse than putting on cold boots. My extended cab truck is used when we have less then 5 of us going.


----------



## Cannonball (Jan 5, 2016)

How about a cargo van?

Seriously though, if you're going to be consistently leaving 5-7 pairs of skis in your car while you are out skiing I'd recommend some tinted windows and a good alarm system.


----------



## tnt1234 (Jan 5, 2016)

yeggous said:


> Glad to hear it. I work on the nav system behind Subaru and 80% of the cars in the US and Europe. I was looking at the Mazda, but walked out when I realized it has a TomTom nav system. Now that I'm developing these systems for a living, I want to have one to use on a day-to-day basis. (It turns out mapping software pays much better than weather for the insurance industry.)



Very cool!

I have a few notes and complaints about the sub. system - mainly start-up time, and I haven't figured out how to alter routes.  for example, avoid the GW, or stay on the highway longer etc....  Probably just me though.


----------



## Smellytele (Jan 5, 2016)

tnt1234 said:


> Very cool!
> 
> I have a few notes and complaints about the sub. system - mainly start-up time, and I haven't figured out how to alter routes.  for example, avoid the GW, or stay on the highway longer etc....  Probably just me though.




I hate technology is vehicles. Just something else to go wrong that needs fixing at overblown prices and that is out dated before the car is even paid for. Over engineering is the norm lately and the reason vehicles cost so f'n much. just give me a stripped down vehicle with manual windows and no over blown useless soon to be outdated technology.


----------



## Puck it (Jan 5, 2016)

Cannonball said:


> How about a cargo van?
> 
> Seriously though, if you're going to be consistently leaving 5-7 pairs of skis in your car while you are out skiing I'd recommend some tinted windows and a good alarm system.


 Only 2 or 3 in the FJ at any given time.


----------



## Whitey (Jan 5, 2016)

I've got a Toyota Tacoma pick up with a cap on the back and I still use a Thule roof box (i.e. I've got more than enough room to get skis in the back but use a roof box anyway).   I find getting the skis up and out of the way is a big help.  Then I can us the back of the truck for everything else.   Step rails on the sides of the truck do make it a lot easier to get stuff in and out of the box because you can stand on them as you are loading stuff in or out of the roof box.  I can easily get 7-8 pairs of skis in there, but I specifically bought the larger one (Atlantis) for that reason.    When skis are crusted with snow at the end of the day, you really don't want to be throwing them in the back of your car/SUV to melt all over the back/seats.   

I take my roof box on and off with every trip.   Takes me max 10 minutes, if that.  Thule has a good design with 4 "jaws" that close/tighten easily to secure it to the roof rack.    Sometimes when we need more passengers than the Toyota can carry - I throw it on the wife's SUV.   Lots of flexibility that way.   The only real trick is having a place to put the roof box when not in use, they are big and take a lot of room.   I carry it by myself to & from the shed in my back yard.  They are big but not heavy.   

Roof box or nothing, in my view.   Open ski racks are horrible if the local DPW is sanding/salting the roads at all when you are driving.  You get all that crap on your edges and bindings.   Bad deal.  In that case I'd put my skis inside before I put them in an exposed rack.


----------



## VTKilarney (Jan 5, 2016)

Smellytele said:


> I hate technology is vehicles. Just something else to go wrong that needs fixing at overblown prices and that is out dated before the car is even paid for. Over engineering is the norm lately and the reason vehicles cost so f'n much. just give me a stripped down vehicle with manual windows and no over blown useless soon to be outdated technology.



I am a sucker and usually buy vehicles with way too many options.  Inevitably, I wind up thinking that most were not nearly as cool as I hoped.

However, here are some options that I really thought were worth it:
- Heads Up Display: I've never been more aware of my speed.  My insurance rates should drop by quite a bit because I am much less likely to speed.
- Adaptive Cruise Control: This makes cruise control useful in so many more situations.  Mine will even work in a traffic jam, so long as the vehicle is not fully stopped for more than 15 or 20 seconds.  
- Collision warning and braking: I've yet to need it, but I'm very glad it's there.
- Blind spot warning
- Backup camera

Ironically, one of the least appealing tech options I have in my vehicle is the GPS.  My iPhone works just fine, and I don't have to worry about maps being out of date when I use my iPhone.

But at the end of the day, get a vehicle that you like because it is comfortable and drives well.  That's the most important thing.  You can put a ski rack on just about anything, so don't let that drive your decision.


----------



## deadheadskier (Jan 5, 2016)

Smellytele said:


> I hate technology is vehicles. Just something else to go wrong that needs fixing at overblown prices and that is out dated before the car is even paid for. Over engineering is the norm lately and the reason vehicles cost so f'n much. just give me a stripped down vehicle with manual windows and no over blown useless soon to be outdated technology.



Same.  What matters most to me are handling and available manual transmission.  Navigation system I don't care about. I have a phone for that.  I use cruise control on highways, but never would need adaptive technology as there just isn't that much traffic in Northern New England.  I also put so many miles on my cars that they depreciate so fast I wouldn't get any of the value out of the extra luxuries if I bought them.


----------



## Warp Daddy (Jan 5, 2016)

Outback we haul 4 prs  of 170's inside with 3 people can also use our 2014 rav if there is just two of us  .


----------



## Smellytele (Jan 5, 2016)

deadheadskier said:


> Same.  What matters most to me are handling and available manual transmission.  Navigation system I don't care about. I have a phone for that.  I use cruise control on highways, but never would need adaptive technology as there just isn't that much traffic in Northern New England.  I also put so many miles on my cars that they depreciate so fast I wouldn't get any of the value out of the extra luxuries if I bought them.


  Manual transmissions are starting to go the way of the Dodo. even sports cars are going with automatics such as the 8speed for the corvette.


----------



## WoodCore (Jan 5, 2016)

I always used to carried my skis inside the car, 4-5 pairs at a time until last year. I happened to see the remnants of a nasty accident involving a person carrying skis in the car, it appeared that upon impact the skis became projectiles and went right through the windshield. After seeing this I went out and bought a big Thule box the next day. It easily fits six pair of skis and is a breeze to move between vehicles. More importantly when driving down the highway at 75+ mph, I don't worry about 180cm spears impacting the back of my head.


----------



## Smellytele (Jan 5, 2016)

WoodCore said:


> I always used to carried my skis inside the car, 4-5 pairs at a time until last year. I happened to see the remnants of a nasty accident involving a person carrying skis in the car, it appeared that upon impact the skis became projectiles and went right through the windshield. After seeing this I went out and bought a big Thule box the next day. It easily fits six pair of skis and is a breeze to move between vehicles. More importantly when driving down the highway at 75+ mph, I don't worry about 180cm spears impacting the back of my head.



I did see a smashed box the other day on the side of 93. There were skis broken and bent in half. It was a mess. Must have fallen off someone's roof and got ran over a few times.


----------



## deadheadskier (Jan 5, 2016)

Smellytele said:


> Manual transmissions are starting to go the way of the Dodo. even sports cars are going with automatics such as the 8speed for the corvette.



Yup, sucks.  I rant about it frequently.

Thankfully Mazda still believes in them.  Though I wish they offered MT in an awd vehicle.


----------



## VTKilarney (Jan 5, 2016)

deadheadskier said:


> I use cruise control on highways, but never would need adaptive technology as there just isn't that much traffic in Northern New England.


I used to think that too.  Trust me, once you get adaptive cruise control you'll see the vast benefit.  It's great for passing when you have to let someone get by you first in the left hand lane.  It's so good that, as long as someone is in front of me, I don't have to exit cruise control when I go through the tolls in southern New Hampshire.  It comes in handy a lot more often than I expected.


----------



## crank (Jan 5, 2016)

I agree about the nav. systems.  I use a plug in tom tom that is great.  If it breaks or technology gets better I can get a new one for another $100.

My GF has a Forester and we love all that glass; best visibility of any car I have ever driven except for a convertible.  Outbacks feel a little tight up front for me.  However my longer skis and our xc skis have to go in diagonally

I have a Toyota Highlander that works pretty well for a ski car and all my skis do fit straight except for my 210cm xc skis. Have taken many a long road trip with 3 people and all our skis and no rack.  Highlander has a really smooth ride and is an excellent highway crossover.  Gas mileage is low 20's with a 6.

Used to have a Thule box on it.  It was a longer one and I kept some skis in it all winter.  Not sure why you would need to take it off every trip unless you keep your car garaged.  Mine was an older model and was a bit of a PITA to clamp onto the cross bars but still only took about 10 minutes.


----------



## VTKilarney (Jan 5, 2016)

crank said:


> I agree about the nav. systems.  I use a plug in tom tom that is great.  If it breaks or technology gets better I can get a new one for another $100.


You just have to make sure to put the plug-in GPS away and out of sight when you park.  Ask me how I learned that lesson...

The Waze app is worth checking out.  I've had some really good luck with their traffic avoidance algorithm.  I'm not a huge fan of their interface, however.  I was hoping Google would polish it more once they bought the company.


----------



## deadheadskier (Jan 5, 2016)

VTKilarney said:


> I used to think that too.  Trust me, once you get adaptive cruise control you'll see the vast benefit.  It's great for passing when you have to let someone get by you first in the left hand lane.  It's so good that, as long as someone is in front of me, I don't have to exit cruise control when I go through the tolls in southern New Hampshire.  It comes in handy a lot more often than I expected.



I would think it wouldn't be as affective with a MT car. If the technology slows down for the car in front of me while I'm waiting for a car to pass on the left, I'm likely disengaging CC anyways and dropping from 6th down to 5th to pass.  Having to switch in and out of CC briefly on highways is a first world problem I can easily tolerate. I'd rather spend that cash on an extra set of skis or beers at the ski lodge bar.  

Anywhere I'm near tolls or in high traffic, I'm not using cruise control.  I want to be focused and paying attention to my driving then; not relying on a computer to do it for me.


----------



## VTKilarney (Jan 5, 2016)

deadheadskier said:


> I'd rather spend that cash on an extra set of skis or beers at the ski lodge bar.


I can't argue with that logic.


----------



## gmcunni (Jan 5, 2016)

VTKilarney said:


> You just have to make sure to put the plug-in GPS away and out of sight when you park.  Ask me how I learned that lesson...
> 
> The Waze app is worth checking out.  I've had some really good luck with their traffic avoidance algorithm.  I'm not a huge fan of their interface, however.  I was hoping Google would polish it more once they bought the company.



i use Waze all the time. they updated the interface a few months back, less cartoon-ish, but i actually liked the old one.


----------



## VTKilarney (Jan 5, 2016)

gmcunni said:


> i use Waze all the time. they updated the interface a few months back, less cartoon-ish, but i actually liked the old one.



I'll have to check out the new interface.  I had stopped using it because of my vehicle's own GPS, but this may be enough to bring me back.  Thanks for the heads up.


----------



## dlague (Jan 5, 2016)

Nice thing about my SUV - it can handle spring season really well!  Golf clubs, skis, lacrosse gear and tailgating goods all in one without a thule rack with four in the truck.   However, Thule rack is our back up!


----------



## yeggous (Jan 5, 2016)

Glad to hear about putting in the skis diagonally in the Outback. That verifies my measurements. I like the way it drove. My wife likes the Forester more because it sits a bit higher. She is having a tantrum that she should get the new car. She is threatening that if I try to buy something else, she is still going to buy a Forester. She likes to throw tantrums.

I'm going to look into the compact pickup route. I used to have a F-150 before the Santa Fe. It's hard to find something that seems worthwhile at a sane price point.

As far as GPS systems go, Waze is owned by Google and has the best traffic information. The problems with the Waze/Google solution are:
1) it over-optimizes routes in traffic and can cost you a lot of time at stop signs and traffic lights
2) it has no idea what the speed limit is, only how long it usually takes people to drive the streets

Apple uses TomTom. Their maps are the least accurate and not updated nearly as frequently. They also have the smallest database of points of interest.

I work for HERE. We are owned by a consortium of BMW, Audi, and Daimler. Our map packages ship on about 80% of new cars with nav systems in North America and Europe. (The other 20% is almost always TomTom.) The car / GPS manufacturer puts their own GUI on top of our API to integrate it into their infotainment system. In addition to auto manufacturers, we have a lot of commercial customers that rely on our maps including: Facebook, Amazon, UPS, FedEx, Microsoft, Rand McNally, Garmin, and Yahoo.

The part of the system that I work on is the search box. I take what you enter for a query and figure out where you are trying to go.

HERE's worldwide maps are the most extensive and accurate in the industry. Our system is largely designed with an eye on the self-driving car. For that reason we assume that you always drive the speed limit. This means that our drive times are overly conservative, and the routes are optimized toward the highway.


----------



## Puck it (Jan 5, 2016)

Here you go

http://www.iconvehicledynamics.com/...m-build-challenge-oakley-ultimate-ski-runner/


----------



## yeggous (Jan 5, 2016)

I was thinking about the Rav4 and CR-V. But did you see the Consumer Reports inter-comparison test of a the AWD systems?


----------



## HD333 (Jan 5, 2016)

uphillklimber said:


> Oops, just remembered you want the navi, but under 30K. I think to get the navi package, you'll be well over 30K.



A new CRV is over $30k? WTF?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Bene288 (Jan 5, 2016)

Nothing beats a pick up. .


----------



## dlague (Jan 5, 2016)

HD333 said:


> A new CRV is over $30k? WTF?
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk



Car and truck prices are so out of hand at this point that even 3 year old vehicles are priced too high!  I never buy new - generally 2-3 years old and while recently looking I opted to hold on to my truck for one more season.


----------



## VTKilarney (Jan 5, 2016)

I agree that the prices have gotten way out of hand.  While cars are much safer than they used to be, they are also much more complicated to produce.  That has had an impact on prices, for sure.


----------



## BenedictGomez (Jan 5, 2016)

dlague said:


> As far as an SUV - I too have been looking at crossovers and have been wondering about that.  I currently have a full size SUV and when it involves 5 or less I can through all the gear in the back with no problems and it is way easier unloading.



I think you'll be disappointed going from a full-size SUV to a station wagon (aka crossover).  They're just not the same.  As with all my vehicles, I'll drive it until it dies, as which time, the used-car market will no longer be at it's 2015 highs.  Maybe get a Tahoe next or something akin to that.



Smellytele said:


> *Manual transmissions are starting to go the way of the Dodo.* even sports cars are going with automatics such as the 8speed for the corvette.



With good reason.  I get that some people love the feel of driving stick, but the reality is, with the modern computerization, even Jeff Gordon isn't going to "out shift" a regular production vehicle's automatic transmission.



VTKilarney said:


> *The Waze app is worth checking out.*  I've had some really good luck with their traffic avoidance algorithm.  I'm not a huge fan of their interface, however.  I was hoping Google would polish it more once they bought the company.



I tried experimenting with this on my road-trip from from FL, but I didnt like it.  I didnt like the non-realistic cartoon'y display, and unless I couldnt figure it out, it doesnt incorporate live red, yellow, green traffic like GOOG maps?   The police car thing is a cool idea in theory, but I found that I'd be right on top of (or past) the police car in question when it went off, or too often it wasnt updated and there was no cop in the first place.  I like using a combo effort of my Garmin with traffic, and regular old GOOG maps better.   If I see traffic on the Garmin, I look at GOOG maps to get around it.  Saves me literally hours of time from being stuck in traffic.


----------



## BenedictGomez (Jan 5, 2016)

dlague said:


> *Car and truck prices are so out of hand at this point that even 3 year old vehicles are priced too high!*  I never buy new - generally 2-3 years old and while recently looking I opted to hold on to my truck for one more season.



Supply & Demand.

The good news, however, is that used car prices are going to crash in about 3 years.


----------



## VTKilarney (Jan 5, 2016)

BenedictGomez said:


> With good reason.  I get that some people love the feel of driving stick, but the reality is, with the modern computerization, even Jeff Gordon isn't going to "out shift" a regular production vehicle's automatic transmission.


I fully agree.  I drove a manual transmission for years, but I have no desire to go back.  Modern automatic transmissions are way better than they used to be.  I have eight gears to choose from, and I can set the driving mode to suit my style.  And if that's not enough, I can set my transmission to shift manually.  Can the person with a manual transmission shift into "automatic mode" when they are in a traffic jam?  I think not.

Bottom line: Despite what fans of manual transmissions think, there really aren't any benefits to manual transmissions anymore.  Technology has made manual transmissions a relic.


----------



## ironhippy (Jan 5, 2016)

BenedictGomez said:


> The good news, however, is that used car prices are going to crash in about 3 years.



The bad news is that used cars are going to be less and less useful.

From the expense of replacing critical electrical components to the fact that vehicles are not built as sturdy as before (simply put, less metal = less weight = better fuel mileage) means that cars will not last as long as we're used to.


----------



## ironhippy (Jan 5, 2016)

VTKilarney said:


> Bottom line: Despite what fans of manual transmissions think, there really aren't any benefits to manual transmissions anymore.  Technology has made manual transmissions a relic.



I drive a manual and agree with you completely. If I had to deal with traffic at all, I would not have a manual.


----------



## deadheadskier (Jan 5, 2016)

BG, I think you assume that people who prefer a MT do so for acceleration purposes and running through the gears.  That's a completely false assumption.  I know I can't "run through the gears"  as fast as the computerized automatics of today. 

But, those computers aren't going to maintain the type of torque I want over a car in given driving circumstances.  That's the point in addition to the "fun factor."  You simply have much more control over a vehicle with a MT.   They perform vastly better in snow and muddy conditions as well.  There's no denying this.


----------



## deadheadskier (Jan 5, 2016)

VTKilarney said:


> Bottom line: Despite what fans of manual transmissions think, there really aren't any benefits to manual transmissions anymore.  Technology has made manual transmissions a relic.



Laziness has made manual transmissions a relic.  

I've driven some very slick modern ATs in expensive European and Japanese luxury cars.  Even in their manual modes they simply don't perform as well as a traditional MT.


----------



## VTKilarney (Jan 5, 2016)

deadheadskier said:


> You simply have much more control over a vehicle with a MT.   They perform vastly better in snow and muddy conditions as well.  There's no denying this.


Really????  There is no way your manual transmission will outperform an automatic transmission with traction control in the snow.


----------



## yeggous (Jan 5, 2016)

ironhippy said:


> The bad news is that used cars are going to be less and less useful.
> 
> From the expense of replacing critical electrical components to the fact that vehicles are not built as sturdy as before (simply put, less metal = less weight = better fuel mileage) means that cars will not last as long as we're used to.



Working in the industry, I can tell you that there is truth to only half of this. Yes, cars are going to become obsolete increasingly quickly. The industry recognizes that it has fallen way behind a lot of others in connected technology. It is also rapidly slingshotting to catch up. We've entered a new period of rapidly advancing electronics and automation of vehicles.

At the same time all of this computing power has resulted in vehicles that last longer than ever. Engineers have access to complicate computer control systems that reduce stress on mechanic parts. Advances in materials have made parts more durable and resistant to corrosion.

Much like you upgrade your laptop and phone, you're going to replace your car far before it reaches the end of its mechanically useful life.


----------



## VTKilarney (Jan 5, 2016)

deadheadskier said:


> Laziness has made manual transmissions a relic.
> 
> I've driven some very slick modern ATs in expensive European and Japanese luxury cars.  Even in their manual modes they simply don't perform as well as a traditional MT.



You're starting to sound like the people who insist that vinyl records produce the most pure sound.


----------



## deadheadskier (Jan 5, 2016)

VTKilarney said:


> Really????  There is no way your manual transmission will outperform an automatic transmission with traction control in the snow.



B.S.

All things being equal - tires, AWD/FWD, HP - the MT wins with a good driver.  

Ever watch winter rally car racing? What are the vast majority of them driving?   Why do most Jeep Heads who do a lot of off roading still use manuals?

More control over the vehicle


----------



## Puck it (Jan 5, 2016)

deadheadskier said:


> B.S.
> 
> All things being equal - tires, AWD/FWD, HP - the MT wins with a good driver.
> 
> ...


  Not true.  F1, Rally and Indy cars are all clutchless now.  4X4 yes.


----------



## VTKilarney (Jan 5, 2016)

deadheadskier said:


> B.S.
> 
> All things being equal - tires, AWD/FWD, HP - the MT wins with a good driver.
> 
> ...



Even if we forget that what you say is false, you keep ignoring the fact that my automatic transmission has a manual mode.  It's got paddles like... you know... Subaru uses in its P2000 WRC.  And just like Hyundai, Ford, Volkswagen, Citroen, and others use in their rally cars as well.

So using your own criteria of "look what rally car drivers do!", you lose.

Sarcasm aside, a computer can shift better than you can.  It's just a fact.  Rally racers know that paddle shifters are much more quick and responsive than a stick.  This is why they have embraced them.  Another benefit is that your hands stay on the wheel, giving you better control over steering.


----------



## Scruffy (Jan 5, 2016)

ironhippy said:


> The bad news is that used cars are going to be less and less useful.
> 
> From the expense of replacing critical electrical components to the fact that vehicles are not built as sturdy as before (simply put, less metal = less weight = better fuel mileage) *means that cars will not last as long as we're used to*.



I hope you're wrong about that, but we'll have to see. Cars today vastly outlast their predecessors in just about every way. In the 1960's if you got 100000 miles on an engine before it started burning oil and needed rebuilding, you were lucky. Auto Trannys needed rebuilding constantly. In the late 1970's, cars rusted out after one year. Today, if you don't get at least 300000 miles out of a car, it's a lemon, or you didn't take care of it. 

 A lot of newer vehicles are getting lighter because of aluminum ( F-150 frame) or carbon fiber (expensive Euro cars and corvette ), hopefully some of this will trickle down to every day cars. 

 I agree with you, that with used cars, some repairs may be expensive as costly electronic features fail. And, I agree that some pick-up trucks, esp in the half ton category, are not built as tough as your grandfather's PU, in terms of frame strength and suspension. But, if people are paying north of 30Gs for an average ride, they better damn well last or that auto company will feel the wrath from consumers the Big 3 felt in the 1980s-2000s - run away fast with your $$$s to the company that builds quality.


----------



## deadheadskier (Jan 5, 2016)

I've used paddle shifters before in an Lexus IS350, I've owned an Audi A6 with manual mode.  Both were good, but not as good as traditional.  

That's all I'll say on this.  I've gone round and around this topic all I care for numerous times before.

End of the day, drive what makes you happy and you feel safest driving.


----------



## Scruffy (Jan 5, 2016)

I loved shifting when I had sports cars or muscle cars. Now, the autos are so good, even in trucks, that the towing capacity is usually higher for the same truck equipped with an auto over a manual. Big tractors ( eighteen wheelers ) use auto trannys now too.


----------



## Puck it (Jan 5, 2016)

deadheadskier said:


> I've used paddle shifters before in an Lexus IS350, I've owned an Audi A6 with manual mode.  Both were good, but not as good as traditional.
> 
> That's all I'll say on this.  I've gone round and around this topic all I care for numerous times before.
> 
> End of the day, drive what makes you happy and you feel safest driving.


Not saying anything about preference.  Sequential trannys are just faster shifting then the MT.


----------



## VTKilarney (Jan 5, 2016)

Puck it said:


> Not saying anything about preference.  Sequential trannys are just faster shifting then the MT.



Bingo.  That faster shifting gives you much greater control.  That is why rally car drivers use them - and I think someone here said that rally car drivers are all about having maximum control over their car.  

This is why my automatic transmission with traction control and a manual paddle-shift option is better in the snow.

I can appreciate that some people prefer a stick shift in the same way that some people prefer listening to vinyl records.  But it's merely that, a personal preference.  Preference alone does not equal better.


----------



## deadheadskier (Jan 5, 2016)

Puck it said:


> Not saying anything about preference.  Sequential trannys are just faster shifting then the MT.



I already conceded they are faster.


----------



## Smellytele (Jan 5, 2016)

yeggous said:


> Much like you upgrade your laptop and phone, you're going to replace your car far before it reaches the end of its mechanically useful life.



This is not me. While I may buy a new car now and then I drive them to their death. My last 4 vehicles were a new truck that after 2 transmissions and an engine it was laid to rest. Next My wife had a new minivan that was traded in for "cash for clunkers" - may it rust in peace. At the same time I also had a new suv that may have continued its life with a new transmission and 4k of other repairs it needed when it was traded in for 1k. Lastly I had a used ranger that I drove for almost 300k before I got rid of it. wife's Traverse now has 155k on it and still will be driven for at least 3 years.
I believe that vehicles last longer now than they did in the 70's and 80's. Rarely did people put 100k let alone 150k on a vehicle back then. did some yes but rarely.


----------



## bigbog (Jan 5, 2016)

yeggous said:


> I want to haul about 7 pairs of skis at any given time. That would be a big rack.



Putting some on the roof(in either box or rack) will save space inside..y/n?


----------



## gmcunni (Jan 5, 2016)

deadheadskier said:


> B.S.
> 
> All things being equal - tires, AWD/FWD, HP - the MT wins* with a good driver.  *



fewer and fewer of those around too


----------



## VTKilarney (Jan 5, 2016)

I'd love to be one of those people that keeps a car until 300,000 miles on the odometer.  But my biggest fear is breaking down on a frigid night in the middle of nowhere.  That's a valid fear living in a rural area where cell phone coverage is spotty.  I wouldn't mind if it was just me, but with my wife and children in the car it's another story.  I need to learn to be less worried about breaking down.

I also need to drive cars that are affordable to repair.  My Audi did not fall into that category, which is why my last two vehicles have been American brands.  A friend of mine had to replace the shocks on his Mercedes - at a cost of $1,500 per shock.


----------



## yeggous (Jan 5, 2016)

uphillklimber said:


> I've been known to drive cars into the 200K miles. I keep them mechanically sound and have no fear about driving them whenever and where ever. In fact some of the trail heads i park at, I'd much rather park a junker than a new car anyways. But the constantly having to fix SOMETHING on them gets old. I keep reminding myself of how much cheaper it is to do the $138.00 repair than to take on car payments again......
> 
> Now owning a nice new one ( or relatively new one) is awfully nice....



Wait, you get car repairs for $138? I wish. For me there is big value in knowing my car is not going to break down. With all the driving I do, I really, really do not want to deal with being stranded far from home.

The automotive industry that my grandfather knew is dead. My father (now a grandfather) does not really understand how I work for car companies.

NPR had a decent example of this on air today:
http://hereandnow.wbur.org/2016/01/05/ces-2016-car-tech


----------



## ironhippy (Jan 5, 2016)

hopefully I am being over dramatic.

I have a 3 year old iphone that I am only upgrading because I don't want to fix the screen again, i hate the fact that my cell phone has become a fashion accessory that "needs" to be updated every year. I hate updating things that work for me.

I find it funny with everyone worried about older cars, I've never owned a vehicle with less than 100,000 miles or less than 10 years old. 
However I've also had several break downs in the middle of nowhere. I once drove 300 miles, stopping every 15 minutes (or when my temp gauge started to rise) to fill up my radiator. I had to stop every hour to fill up the jugs of water. That was a long night.

I currently have a 2002 Tacoma that I would love to keep forever, however rust will eventually kill the body (the frame has already been replaced by Toyota).

I am also completely biased and feel that the pinnacle of vehicle reliability is late 80's - late 90's japenese (specifically toyota) vehicles.


----------



## BenedictGomez (Jan 5, 2016)

VTKilarney said:


> Bottom line: Despite what fans of manual transmissions think, there really aren't any benefits to manual transmissions anymore.  Technology has made manual transmissions a relic.



Exactly.  It's either all in people's heads or it's a personal preference.  Or it's the sort of person who is a "technology hater", like my brother who only got a cell phone 2 years ago, and it was already outdated when he bought it.



deadheadskier said:


> You simply have much more control over a vehicle with a MT.   They perform vastly better in snow and muddy conditions as well.  *There's no denying this.*



Call me a denier.  The computer will make those adjustments better.



VTKilarney said:


> Sarcasm aside, a computer can shift better than you can.  It's just a fact.  *Rally racers know that paddle shifters are much more quick and responsive than a stick.  This is why they have embraced them. * Another benefit is that your hands stay on the wheel, giving you better control over steering.



First time I used paddle shifters was on a rental car in Ireland circa 2005.  Mind = blown.  I thought it was fun.



Smellytele said:


> wife's Traverse now has 155k on it and still will be driven for at least 3 years.
> *I believe that vehicles last longer now than they did in the 70's and 80's. Rarely did people put 100k let alone 150k on a vehicle back then. *did some yes but rarely.



This is undoubtedly true.  A car with 100k on it was a source of pride when I was a kid, now it's a lemon if you cant hit 100k.  I just turned over 140,000 on my Envoy this weekend on the way back from FL.  I plan on keeping it 2 to 3 more years, ~175,000 I'd guess.


----------



## VTKilarney (Jan 5, 2016)

Are cars now really less reliable than a 1990's Toyota?  I'm not so sure.  Today's cars may seem to be less reliable because everyone else caught up in terms of reliability.  You no longer have the quality outliers like you once had with Toyota and Honda.


----------



## bigbog (Jan 5, 2016)

Vehicles that "break down" are mostly the fault of lazy owners who don't keep up with any issues...it's not the vehicles themselves.  
...and a lot of it depends on where you drive(climate) and what terrain you drive in/on.
Agree uphillklimber....so much of the sub-systems of today's vehicles are electronic.  It would take a whole course in electronics and auto-electronics to keep on top of everything, but there are more than a few diagnostic tools being on the market that it's sometimes worth it, depending on what vehicle one chooses to keep around for a while...  It's enough just to keep on top of OSes and software/gadgets(HW) these days..;-)


----------



## VTKilarney (Jan 5, 2016)

Back to the topic at hand.  I currently own a mid-size SUV.  I probably should have gone with a compact SUV.  The difference in size is pretty minimal, and the compact SUVs get much better gas mileage.  It seems like the biggest difference is that the mid-size sits higher up.  The other difference is that it rides nicer due mostly to the added weight.  It felt quieter and more solid.  I rode both types of vehicles back to back and there was definitely a difference.  But I'm not at all sure that it was worth the $10,000 price difference.

My recommendation would be to go with a crossover or compact SUV, but with a roof rack.

I'm a fan of the Mazda CX-5 and the Jeep Cherokee.  The Outback is probably a good choice, but as a Vermonter a Subaru feels much too conformist.


----------



## hammer (Jan 5, 2016)

My Jeep Grand Cherokee has plenty of length to handle a few pairs of skis but if I had to carry up to 7 pair I'd get a roof rack and a box.

Since it's usually just the two of us my Volvo S40 with the folding back seat works fine.  Could do better on mileage but I didn't buy the car to save on gas.

The Volvo is at 99K and it's been the most reliable car I've had so far (although there's an intermittent startup issue that has come up lately).  The Jeep is over 80K and has had a few issues, but between the service contract and the base warranty we have had most items covered.  Has been solid for several months now, just keep up on the oil changes and tire rotations.

Hope to keep both vehicles to at least 200K.


----------



## BenedictGomez (Jan 5, 2016)

bigbog said:


> Vehicles that "break down" are mostly the fault of lazy owners who don't keep up with any issues...it's not the vehicles themselves.
> ...and *a lot of it depends on where you drive(climate) *and what terrain you drive in/on.



I've noticed that newfangled salt spray crap they've been using on the roads in Vermont absolutely dissolves people's cars.  EVERY ski trip back from Vermont we immediately take our vehicles through a car wash.



VTKilarney said:


> as a Vermonter a Subaru feels much too conformist.



As a Vermonter, I thought each family is mandated to own at least one Subaru?


----------



## VTKilarney (Jan 5, 2016)

BenedictGomez said:


> I've noticed that newfangled salt spray crap they've been using on the roads in Vermont absolutely dissolves people's cars.  EVERY ski trip back from Vermont we immediately take our vehicles through a car wash.


Ah yes, salt brine.  I know a plow truck driver for the Vermont DOT who doesn't have much good to say about it.  Apparently the method Vermont uses to put it down is pretty ineffective.  I forgot the details, but IIRC the problem is that the state was trying to do it on the cheap.


----------



## crank (Jan 5, 2016)

My 2003 Highlander has 242,000 on it and I still drive it to VT.  Never left me stranded.  Needs a new exhaust right now and I have replaced all the calipers over the years.  Had the timing chain and exhaust both replaced at 120k.  Gonna keep her until at least 250,000.  She'll also need a new battery to get through the winter.

Extremely reliable vehicle and no rust.


----------



## cdskier (Jan 5, 2016)

Smellytele said:


> wife's Traverse now has 155k on it and still will be driven for at least 3 years.



That's the first good Traverse story I've heard! My dad hated his Traverse (And he was a huge Chevy guy up to that point). He had quite a few issues with it and got rid of it as soon as the warranty was up. Now he drives a Pilot which he loves (I'm not personally a big fan of the feel of the Pilot while driving). My manager also has a Traverse and is always telling me about different problems.

Personally I have a 2007 Avalanche and am quite happy with it (215K). Too bad they stopped making it as I have no idea what I'll do when I eventually need to replace it. Although I probably wouldn't be able to afford what they would want for that thing today if they still made it. Prices on Chevy's PUs and larger SUVs are ridiculous...


----------



## SnowRock (Jan 5, 2016)

hammer said:


> My Jeep Grand Cherokee has plenty of length to handle a few pairs of skis but if I had to carry up to 7 pair I'd get a roof rack and a box.
> 
> The Volvo is at 99K and it's been the most reliable car I've had so far (although there's an intermittent startup issue that has come up lately).  The Jeep is over 80K and has had a few issues, but between the service contract and the base warranty we have had most items covered.  Has been solid for several months now, just keep up on the oil changes and tire rotations.
> 
> Hope to keep both vehicles to at least 200K.


To give you hope...  I'm at 145k with my 2011 JGC and the only issue of note was self inflicted. Still with the original brake pads, though I just threw on the third set of tires.


----------



## darent (Jan 5, 2016)

deadheadskier said:


> I've used paddle shifters before in an Lexus IS350, I've owned an Audi A6 with manual mode.  Both were good, but not as good as traditional.
> 
> That's all I'll say on this.  I've gone round and around this topic all I care for numerous times before.
> 
> End of the day, drive what makes you happy and you feel safest driving.


Have to like DHS love of mt, I really like a manual tranny,You control the car and shift gears, it is fun. I dread the day when computers take over and drive cars, just shoot me!!nothing better than a twisty road,a manual tranny and a revy engine. hanging it out and sliding around corners. turn off that advanced vehicle control module and learn how to drive your car!!


----------



## Smellytele (Jan 5, 2016)

cdskier said:


> That's the first good Traverse story I've heard! My dad hated his Traverse (And he was a huge Chevy guy up to that point). He had quite a few issues with it and got rid of it as soon as the warranty was up. Now he drives a Pilot which he loves (I'm not personally a big fan of the feel of the Pilot while driving). My manager also has a Traverse and is always telling me about different problems.
> 
> Personally I have a 2007 Avalanche and am quite happy with it (215K). Too bad they stopped making it as I have no idea what I'll do when I eventually need to replace it. Although I probably wouldn't be able to afford what they would want for that thing today if they still made it. Prices on Chevy's PUs and larger SUVs are ridiculous...



Never said I liked the traverse . Had a timing belt issue while it was under warranty also a front end steering issue. Changing the headlights you have to take the front end apart and it is impossible to change 3 of the spark plugs in the thing. Over engineered for the headlights and spark plugs.


----------



## deadheadskier (Jan 5, 2016)

darent said:


> Have to like DHS love of mt, I really like a manual tranny,You control the car and shift gears, it is fun. I dread the day when computers take over and drive cars, just shoot me!!nothing better than a twisty road,a manual tranny and a revy engine. hanging it out and sliding around corners. turn off that advanced vehicle control module and learn how to drive your car!!



Amen!


----------



## Brad J (Jan 5, 2016)

Well I am so glad at 61 I never grew up, I had a 2005 Mustang V6 MT for ten years that I named SNOWSTANG. Put one of the folding rear seats down ski's in middle between the seats ( up to 4pair) average 176 in length, 4 snow tires, and IMO had the best ski car I ever owned. 28 MPG,  fun to drive , great highway cruiser and it knew it way to Wildcat . I get a lot of crap and looks driving it in ski country but I have been to more powder days in horrible driving conditions than I would like to remember. So with that experience I bought a new Mustang GT MT . Agree its not for a family but for two people just fine IMO, and a blast to drive. Back in the day the parking lot was full of Mustangs,  Camaros, GTO's  and of coarse Station wagons all 2WD. DHS stay with the MT it makes driving much more FUN.


----------



## dlague (Jan 5, 2016)

Too many things I would like to quote but my wife's Volvo S40 is a great ski car as someone mentioned earlier.  It has 204,000 miles on it.  No payment for three years and going strong.  My SUV has 286,000 miles on it and while showing some wear it will last another season.  Hate shopping for cars or trucks.


Sent from my iPhone using AlpineZone


----------



## deadheadskier (Jan 5, 2016)

I don't mind shopping for cars and trucks.  I just don't like the payments!


----------



## yeggous (Jan 5, 2016)

deadheadskier said:


> I don't mind shopping for cars and trucks.  I just don't like the payments!



Amen!


----------



## dlague (Jan 5, 2016)

deadheadskier said:


> I don't mind shopping for cars and trucks.  I just don't like the payments!



I wish it were as easy as buying something at a department store.  It is time consuming and the financing part excruciating!


Sent from my iPhone using AlpineZone


----------



## Smellytele (Jan 5, 2016)

dlague said:


> I wish it were as easy as buying something at a department store.  It is time consuming and the financing part excruciating!
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using AlpineZone



No matter what I pay for a vehicle I feel like I am getting ripped off.


----------



## yeggous (Jan 5, 2016)

Smellytele said:


> No matter what I pay for a vehicle I feel like I am getting ripped off.



How can you not? The more I look the more I realize that I want a unicorn.

I checked out the Honda CRV and Pilot tonight. The CRV is way too small. The Pilot has ample room but quickly gets very expensive if you want basic safety features. Plus it is just a minivan with rear doors that open outward. Park it next to a Honda minivan and the resemblance is remarkable.

To their credit Subaru seems to be the only manufacturer that doesn't make you buy the top of the line package to get modern safety features. But even Subaru expects you to take at least the middle trim level to get them.

The more I think about it, modern electronic safety features should be a requirement. Automatic lane keeping, blind spot detection, and emergency braking are really important. The technology is there and they would undoubtedly save lives.


Sent from my iPhone using AlpineZone mobile app


----------



## SkiFanE (Jan 5, 2016)

uphillklimber said:


> Just a for instance in why I ended up with the CR-V verses the Pilot. Clearly I was looking for gas mileage. Had a warranty issue so we got a loaner, the Pilot. I put $20.00 in it and drove home. Drove directly back the next night, no side trips, ate up that $20 in gas, where the $20 would go us a week in the CR-V.



Okay - I have to say this. I didn't consider CR-V even though I'm a Honda fan. 95% of them are the slowest cars ever - just behind one on commute home tonight - highway clog lol. have no idea why - but it's truth. So if people see you coming and rush to get ahead of you - that could be why


----------



## Bene288 (Jan 6, 2016)

yeggous said:


> The more I think about it, modern electronic safety features should be a requirement. Automatic lane keeping, blind spot detection, and emergency braking are really important. The technology is there and they would undoubtedly save lives.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using AlpineZone mobile app



People got on fine without all of that stuff before. I'm sure there would be times it would help and times it would hurt, but when it comes down driving needs to be viewed as a skill that people need to be instructed in. You're behind a 5000 lb hunk of metal surrounded by other 5000 lb hunks of metal and you want to rely on computer algorithms to keep you safe? No thanks, I think I'll just pay attention and be liable. I disable the nanny controls in my truck everyday because they almost got me into a bad accident. I don't need a computer to tell me when to cut power to the rear wheels. What if you HAVE to spin the tires to get out of a jam? 

All that aside the blind spot stuff would be nice. I saw a Honda and it seemed to be projecting a side view image on its console. Cool idea for a big truck, seems a little excessive on a small CR-V though.


----------



## VTKilarney (Jan 6, 2016)

Bene288 said:


> People got on fine without all of that stuff before.


Not at all true.  There has been a decrease in serious auto-related injuries due in part to the increased technology in vehicles. Air bags alone have had a measurable impact on reducing serious injuries and/or death. 

As an example: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21720604


----------



## yeggous (Jan 6, 2016)

Bene288 said:


> People got on fine without all of that stuff before. I'm sure there would be times it would help and times it would hurt, but when it comes down driving needs to be viewed as a skill that people need to be instructed in. You're behind a 5000 lb hunk of metal surrounded by other 5000 lb hunks of metal and you want to rely on computer algorithms to keep you safe? No thanks, I think I'll just pay attention and be liable. I disable the nanny controls in my truck everyday because they almost got me into a bad accident. I don't need a computer to tell me when to cut power to the rear wheels. What if you HAVE to spin the tires to get out of a jam?
> 
> All that aside the blind spot stuff would be nice. I saw a Honda and it seemed to be projecting a side view image on its console. Cool idea for a big truck, seems a little excessive on a small CR-V though.



Yes, people got on fine. If by fine you mean accepted that automotive accidents were the leading cause of death in someone my age.


----------



## Bene288 (Jan 6, 2016)

yeggous said:


> Yes, people got on fine. If by fine you mean accepted that automotive accidents were the leading cause of death in someone my age.



It's the risk of driving unfortunately. It's nothing a bunch of computer module bs will resolve. Also depends where you live I guess.


----------



## Bene288 (Jan 6, 2016)

VTKilarney said:


> Not at all true.  There has been a decrease in serious auto-related injuries due in part to the increased technology in vehicles. Air bags alone have had a measurable impact on reducing serious injuries and/or death.
> 
> As an example: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21720604



Airbags are different. I'm talking about options that try to drive the car for you. (Auto braking and that sort of thing)


----------



## deadheadskier (Jan 6, 2016)

Bene288 said:


> Airbags are different. I'm talking about options that try to drive the car for you. (Auto braking and that sort of thing)



Air bags and better designed chasis, I'm all for.  Those I believe are the true life saving improvements.

All the other stuff I think is a wash.  The smart breaking might help you avoid a collision, but you're in that situation because you were fidgeting with some Bluetooth device, talking on cell phone etc.

I think all the technology improvements have made people worse drivers.


----------



## yeggous (Jan 6, 2016)

Bene288 said:


> It's the risk of driving unfortunately. It's nothing a bunch of computer module bs will resolve. Also depends where you live I guess.



Are you joking? This is exactly what computers are going to solve. Computer don't get drunk. They don't make mistakes. They don't get distracted. They don't fall asleep.

Right now the self-driving cars have an accident rate about twice that of human driver cars. Why? People keep tailgating and rear-ending them while driving the speed limit. They have yet to be at-fault in a single accident. Fatality rates are going to plunge in the very foreseeable future. Imagine being able to dramatically reduce the chances of the leading cause of death for half of your life. It is going to be one of those health revolutions on par with any revolution in contemporary medicine.


----------



## VTKilarney (Jan 6, 2016)

deadheadskier said:


> All the other stuff I think is a wash.  The smart breaking might help you avoid a collision, but you're in that situation because you were fidgeting with some Bluetooth device, talking on cell phone etc.


I'm not sure what your point is here.  If someone is fidgeting with a Bluetooth device, aren't they safer in a car with auto-braking than without?  Therefore, doesn't this technology help prevent injuries?  Merely saying that people shouldn't fidget with devices has no bearing at all on whether technology reduces injuries.  People do stupid things all of the time while driving.  That's why we have technology to keep them safer.  You are never going to live in a world where people don't make any mistakes.  I'd much rather have people on the road with this technology than without.


----------



## deadheadskier (Jan 6, 2016)

I'd much rather people not have the distracting technology in addition to having the driving enhancement technology.  What we have now is a one step forward, one step back situation IMO.


----------



## VTKilarney (Jan 6, 2016)

deadheadskier said:


> I'd much rather people not have the distracting technology in addition to having the driving enhancement technology.  What we have now is a one step forward, one step back situation IMO.



I'm not disagreeing with your premise, but thanks to the safety technology we haven't taken two steps back. Bottom line, technology saves lives.

A few months ago I was speaking with an acquaintance who is a personal injury attorney.  They were bemoaning the fact that people don't get injured in automobile accidents like they used to.  That ought to tell you something.


----------



## Bene288 (Jan 6, 2016)

yeggous said:


> Are you joking? This is exactly what computers are going to solve. Computer don't get drunk. They don't make mistakes. They don't get distracted. They don't fall asleep.
> 
> Right now the self-driving cars have an accident rate about twice that of human driver cars. Why? People keep tailgating and rear-ending them while driving the speed limit. They have yet to be at-fault in a single accident. Fatality rates are going to plunge in the very foreseeable future. Imagine being able to dramatically reduce the chances of the leading cause of death for half of your life. It is going to be one of those health revolutions on par with any revolution in contemporary medicine.



I'm not arguing with you. I just have my own opinion on the matter. The only time I've ever almost gotten into an accident is because of auto traction control. An acquaintance of mine got into a wreck because his car applied auto breaks on a slick road. Also had someone driving my truck who is used to looking at those little yellow indicators on their side mirrors, almost merged into someone because they look for that light, not the actual reflection in the mirror.


----------



## cdskier (Jan 6, 2016)

deadheadskier said:


> I'd much rather people not have the distracting technology



Way too late for that. It isn't just "technology" that distracts people though. Technology like cell phones and smart phones has simply made more distractions easily available. I still see so many ridiculous things on my commute to work in NJ that have nothing to do with modern technology distractions. I've even seen people driving on the highway while reading a newspaper that they have placed on their steering wheel!

So yea, I'm all for any new technology to help avoid mistakes made by all these other distractions that already exist.


----------



## VTKilarney (Jan 6, 2016)

Bene288 said:


> I'm not arguing with you. I just have my own opinion on the matter.


Man, does that read like a redneck bumper sticker.  ;-)



Bene288 said:


> The only time I've ever almost gotten into an accident is because of auto traction control. An acquaintance of mine got into a wreck because his car applied auto breaks on a slick road. Also had someone driving my truck who is used to looking at those little yellow indicators on their side mirrors, almost merged into someone because they look for that light, not the actual reflection in the mirror.


These incidents may all be true, but it shows the danger of picking outliers to base an entire premise on.  It's like the stories I used to hear about seatbelts being more dangerous because someone drowned when they couldn't unbuckle.  You have to look beyond single incidents and look at things as a whole.  When you do that, there can be no doubt that technology has reduced fatalities and serious injuries.


----------



## deadheadskier (Jan 6, 2016)

cdskier said:


> . Ive even seen people driving on the highway while reading a newspaper that they have placed on their steering wheel!



If they were driving a stick, they wouldn't have a free hand to turn the pages.  

J/k


----------



## VTKilarney (Jan 6, 2016)

deadheadskier said:


> If they were driving a stick, they wouldn't have a free hand to turn the pages.
> 
> J/k



Manual transmissions are so rare these days that I get very nervous when I see a driver with their hand on a stick. ;-)


----------



## VTKilarney (Jan 6, 2016)

I should point out something that does lend some credence to those questioning the impact of safety technology.  One factor that lends support to that argument is that technology can make people believe that they are safer than they really are, which can result in people taking more risks.  Anti-lock brakes and all-wheel-drive are a good examples.  The studies on anti-lock brakes are mixed, generally showing a reduction of certain types of accidents, but an increase in others.  And lots of drivers go faster in snow because they think that all-wheel-drive helps them stop.  It doesn't.

So it makes sense to be critical of technology.  But it doesn't make sense to dismiss it outright.


----------



## SkiFanE (Jan 6, 2016)

Recent technology is designed to prevent accidents - not just looking at ways to make you safer from a crash. I laude the efforts. But I also get queasy thinking about people relying on them. I have blind spot indicator in my car - I don't stop turning my head each time I change lanes. But I'm sure some people do rely on it - so for that reason I'd prefer no one has it bc I don't trust it 100%. Mine won't work under <20mph and gives lots of false alarms - alert fatigue.  

Edited bc somehow lost part of my very important thoughts on discussion and can't retype lol.


----------



## Rushski (Jan 6, 2016)

Didn't scan though all the posts, but would like to add my .02. 

 Either a midsize or half-ton+ Crew cab truck with 4x4 and a tonneau cover.  Even my short bed Frontier can handle my 178s (diagonally).  Can actually fit longer.

With this setup you get a decent cabin, all weather ability, plenty of cargo space and more utility beyond skiing.

Only drawback and a dealbreaker to some is gas mileage.  Diesel options are helping that.


----------



## cdskier (Jan 6, 2016)

deadheadskier said:


> If they were driving a stick, they wouldn't have a free hand to turn the pages.
> 
> J/k



Hah! Honestly though I've seen people steering with their knees or elbows while having something in each hand (food, phone, makeup, shaver, etc). MT alone would not discourage some from still finding a way to turn pages on a newspaper somehow :razz: It is crazy what some people will do!


----------



## cdskier (Jan 6, 2016)

Also at some point in this thread self-driving cars were mentioned...I'm intrigued by the thought of a car being able to drive me at least part way to the mountain. Even if it could only drive on major highways, then it could at least get me the first 3 hours of my trip up the Thruway/Northway and then I could drive the last 2 hours from the Northway to the MRV. That would be pretty cool, although I'm still not sure I could fully trust a computer even on dry, straight highways.


----------



## drjeff (Jan 6, 2016)

SkiFanE said:


> Recent technology is designed to prevent accidents - not just looking at ways to make you safer from a crash. I laude the efforts. But I also get queasy thinking about people relying on them. I have blind spot indicator in my car - I don't stop turning my head each time I change lanes. But I'm sure some people do rely on it - so for that reason I'd prefer no one has it bc I don't trust it 100%. Mine won't work under <20mph and gives lots of false alarms - alert fatigue.
> 
> Edited bc somehow lost part of my very important thoughts on discussion and can't retype lol.



Agree with the accident prevention technology and the reliance on those systems secondary issues that they could create.

I just got a new SUV ( 2016 GMC Acadia) back in November that had way more technology in it than my previous '09 Acadia did.  And it took me a while, and in some cases is still taking some time for me to get used to it.

I love the forward crash sensor that detects and monitors how close I am following the vehicle in front of me, and then both audibly and visually via a beep and a flashing red light on my dash alerts me if either that vehicle suddenly stops or my closure rate on it rapidly starts to decrease.

The lane change sensors, those started to annoy me, so unless I'm just mindlessly driving some road or am tired, I've turned those off as they kept beeping way to often for my tolerance level

The rear back up camera and crash sensor, I really do like this, but will admit that I still often spend as much time with my head turned looking over my shoulder as I do looking at the screen.

The technology is IMHO a step in the right direction for overall improved safety on the roads.  It still isn't an "excuse" to rely on it exclusively over general awareness by any means though!!


----------



## ironhippy (Jan 6, 2016)

drjeff said:


> The lane change sensors, those started to annoy me, so unless I'm just mindlessly driving some road or am tired, I've turned those off as they kept beeping way to often for my tolerance level
> 
> The rear back up camera and crash sensor, I really do like this, but will admit that I still often spend as much time with my head turned looking over my shoulder as I do looking at the screen.



The lane change sensors scare the crap out of me, what happens when the sensor is dirty or failing?

I've had backup cameras in a lot of my vehicles (including a big, lifted land cruiser) and I only ever used the camera for the last bit of parking, ensuring that I am not going to back up into something. I just treat it like another mirror.


----------



## VTKilarney (Jan 6, 2016)

If the sensors are blocked the car warns you.  I don't rely on the blind spot sensors. I treat them as a second opinion.  

One option that I really like is the side radar that warns me if a vehicle is approaching when I am backing out of a parking space or onto the road.  


.


----------



## Edd (Jan 6, 2016)

drjeff said:


> I love the forward crash sensor that detects and monitors how close I am following the vehicle in front of me, and then both audibly and visually via a beep and a flashing red light on my dash alerts me if either that vehicle suddenly stops or my closure rate on it rapidly starts to decrease.



People seem to need these. I hope they get mandated if they haven't already.


----------



## Bene288 (Jan 6, 2016)

VTKilarney said:


> Man, does that read like a redneck bumper sticker.  ;-)
> 
> 
> These incidents may all be true, but it shows the danger of picking outliers to base an entire premise on.  It's like the stories I used to hear about seatbelts being more dangerous because someone drowned when they couldn't unbuckle.  You have to look beyond single incidents and look at things as a whole.  When you do that, there can be no doubt that technology has reduced fatalities and serious injuries.



I'll add being subjective to my ever growing list of redneck qualities! 

You do it your way and I'll do it mine. Hopefully your auto braking, lane correcting, blind spot detecting vehicle never rear ends the back of my red neck sticker laden truck. And vise versa, may my brake pedal be quick when your traction control kicks on driving up a steep access road!

I'm sure there are many people who benefit from that technology, maybe you're one of them, and that's cool. Not judging you for it. (How un-redneck of me! I'll have to peel off my confederate battle flag bumper sticker in shame now!) However I do think it enables a lot of people to be very lax while driving and rely on electronics a little too much.

Stick shifts need to make a resurgence (not happening, I know), at least to teach people how to properly drive.


----------



## VTKilarney (Jan 6, 2016)

I guess I should have put "j/k" in my comment to make it more obvious.  Sheesh!


----------



## Bene288 (Jan 6, 2016)

VTKilarney said:


> I guess I should have put "j/k" in my comment to make it more obvious.  Sheesh!



Just playing along bud! Not taking it seriously, trust me.


----------



## VTKilarney (Jan 6, 2016)

Bene288 said:


> Just playing along bud! Not taking it seriously, trust me.


My bad.


----------



## mikec142 (Jan 6, 2016)

All this car talk brings a question to mind.  I was driving home from Sugarbush to NJ over the holidays and part of the drive was done in the snow on Route 100 and Route 73.  Both roads are beautiful, but can be dangerous with twists, turns, and steeps.  I was thinking that I would love to take a winter driving course if one was available for the right price in the NYC area.

That said, I love the driver safety features in my SUV.  I used to drive a Volvo XC90 and it developed a traction issue and anti-lock braking issue while I was in VT for a long weekend.  It made driving the car feel like it used to feel in the 80's.  The guys at Volvo said that it was still safe to drive, but had less technology and (again) would feel like I was driving an old school car.  I was never so scared driving.  I felt like I could lose control at any time.  

FWIW, I'm done with Volvo's.  Had a 2001 S60 and a 2006 XC90 that both died exactly at 99,900 miles.  Both required more than they were worth to fix them and had chronic maintenance issues.


----------



## BenedictGomez (Jan 6, 2016)

ironhippy said:


> I've had backup cameras in a lot of my vehicles (including a big, lifted land cruiser) and I only ever used the camera for the last bit of parking, ensuring that I am not going to back up into something.



I've only seen it in 2 vehicles, an Acadia and a Crosstrek.  Hated it in the Crosstrek, because you had to look down at your radio.  Thought it was cool in the Acadia, becuase it was in the rearview mirror, so it's sortof like a second option.


----------



## AdironRider (Jan 6, 2016)

Self driving cars are at least 20 years away. Google has been doing this for the better part of a decade, and even they admit in pretty much anything else than perfect California weather, they are useless. Snow, rain, sleet they just can't handle. Besides, that is going to be more of a long haul trucker thing, than drive me around to ski thing in reality. 

Another vote for manual transmission. Sure auto's are faster, sure they now get a few more mpg's (well with a CVT), but the average driver spends something like 5 years of their lifetime behind the wheel. I'd rather enjoy the ride. In a good turn of events, the USA is actually a big reason why manuals still even exist, because while a small minority, folks like DHS and I won't have anything else. 

I think vehicles peaked in the early 2000's. Just enough tech to be useful (OBD ports), but nothing that is just going to break and fail like you see on cars these days. Give me cruise control, power windows and locks, and a stereo with aux in and I'm good. Oh yeah, plus the 6 speed manual and a locker, but that's just the Wyoming in me coming out.


----------



## VTKilarney (Jan 6, 2016)

I'd say that the rest of the world is why manual transmissions still exist.  


.


----------



## SkiFanE (Jan 6, 2016)

BenedictGomez said:


> I've only seen it in 2 vehicles, an Acadia and a Crosstrek.  Hated it in the Crosstrek, because you had to look down at your radio.  Thought it was cool in the Acadia, becuase it was in the rearview mirror, so it's sortof like a second option.


 
I love my backup camera. Since we have a small dog and child - it's great to be able to double check where I can't see. Our minivan has no camera and is blind from 4 feet and down - never surprised when I hear a minivan running over a kid bc you literally cannot see them - even with mirrors and head turning.  Also my small SUV is dwarfed by trucks and suburbans in parking lots - so the fisheye quality of the camera makes it possible to see if something is coming down the aisle. and of course parking in tight places. 

Mine me is seen from the tv in console - perfect place  I was taught you should never use mirror to back up, so I don't. Still blackout the old fashioned way but nice to check a couple blind spots before backing up.


----------



## tummystix (Jan 6, 2016)

Once you go back-up camera it's really hard to go back. You feel naked without it.


----------



## roark (Jan 6, 2016)

longtime manual driver, grew up on curvy 2 lane highways on the CA coast. now primarily a bicycle commuter in Seattle but still have two cars: saab 9-3 (road trip, around town); and a brand new loaded subie outback (ski car, carry stuff and people). Both auto.

I was really reticent to give up the stick (traded in a mistui outlander awd manual), but for the driving I do now - and probably 99% of americans also do - the stick just doesn't make sense. If I still lived in coastal CA I'd probably have a manual miata (or nicer/sportier). For rural NE driving... nah. Not interesting enough roads to justify the mileage penalty and high density population (relatively speaking) means you're usually behind someone anyway.

 The subie CVT is seamless and far more efficient than a stick. In the rare instance I need it I have the paddle shifters. The adaptive cruise control is phenomenal and I appreciate the potential warnings (both collision, and 'hey dipshit, the car in front is finally moving' beep). Lane departure in an urban environment is totally annoying but I could see the value on a long freeway drive. I did get the 6 cyl, which is super responsive and plenty of passing power and no noticeable drop in hill climbing ability with a couple extra adults. Mileage penalty is felt around town but not that bad if freeway driving.

To get back to the OP, no problem fitting 187s in the outback at a slight tilt with the 1/3 back seat down, allowing plenty of comfort for a 3rd person (and reasonable space for 2 getting cozy in the back). The seat releases very nicely from the trunk btw. And they appreciate the heated seats all around too


----------



## deadheadskier (Jan 6, 2016)

ah man roark, you make me sad. lost another one 

one step away from a minivan


----------



## roark (Jan 6, 2016)

simple fact: driving isn't fun anymore. and that's not necessarily a bad thing (less deaths, esp. per mile traveled).


----------



## SkiFanE (Jan 6, 2016)

uphillklimber said:


> I'd have to say it is the driver, not the vehicle. My 2105 has quite the get up and go. I am able to pass whenever, where ever, up hill or down. When I first had it, it was almost scary. A marked improvement over the 2014. (They made me an awesome trade deal on the 30th of the month). But if you get behind me on the way to the river, you'll see me scrupulously following the speed limit.
> 
> 
> Do I now have to turn in my AZ Ski card????



Arghghgghgh - why do you do that?!?!  For me and the rest of the Congo line behind you on RT 26 - since you obviously have loads of time to putz - could you please just pull over and let us all pass?  You'll cool lots of tempers and boiling blood


----------



## roark (Jan 6, 2016)

deadheadskier said:


> ah man roark, you make me sad. lost another one
> 
> one step away from a minivan


you have a mazda 3? 

2015 outback 3.6 0-60 7.3
2007 mazda 3 touring (faster variant) 7.2

nothing minivan about the outback except the fact that I can carry both stuff and people in comfort.


----------



## deadheadskier (Jan 6, 2016)

roark said:


> you have a mazda 3?
> 
> 2015 outback 3.6 0-60 7.3
> 2007 mazda 3 touring (faster variant) 7.2
> ...



I don't view 0-60 as a good measurement of what makes a car fun to drive.  Having decent pick up is only part of the equation.  I like the go kart handling of the 3.   

I prefer the Outbacks of five years ago before they became a SUV.   The minivan thing was joke as in that's the direction you're heading.


----------



## Hawkshot99 (Jan 6, 2016)

roark said:


> you have a mazda 3?
> 
> 2015 outback 3.6 0-60 7.3
> 2007 mazda 3 touring (faster variant) 7.2
> ...





> 2011 Toyota Sienna SECompare Car0-60 mph 7.0



Looks like your both slower than a minivan.....


----------



## roark (Jan 6, 2016)

show me motor trends 0-60 (hint, it's nearly 10 seconds)


----------



## Hawkshot99 (Jan 7, 2016)

roark said:


> show me motor trends 0-60 (hint, it's nearly 10 seconds)


http://www.zeroto60times.com/  - Lists each year and trim level.  (The year and trim I mentioned were chosen on purpose)

http://www.caranddriver.com/toyota/sienna - 15' Still way faster than 10 seconds....


----------



## Bene288 (Jan 7, 2016)

That Mazda 3 is like a go cart while the Subaru steers more like a toaster. Plenty of interesting roads if you get out into western mass/eastern NYS. I would take a stick shift on them any day. Especially if it was snowy conditions.


----------



## Bene288 (Jan 7, 2016)

Hawkshot99 said:


> http://www.zeroto60times.com/  - Lists each year and trim level.  (The year and trim I mentioned were chosen on purpose)
> 
> http://www.caranddriver.com/toyota/sienna - 15' Still way faster than 10 seconds....



I had a Type ll Acura Legend 6 speed, almost got hosed by my buddy's Honda Odyssey. That was a quick van, made an awesome ski vehicle too.


----------



## VTKilarney (Jan 7, 2016)

uphillklimber said:


> Well, it's pretty simple. I drive the maximum allowed by law, totally a law abiding citizen, to the limit. Someone else wants to break the law, I'm not going to stop driving just because of some lawbreaker. I allow a realistic amount of time to get where I am going and drive safe and legal. Get yourself on the road on time.
> 
> Until you are paying my insurance bills and speeding tickets, deal with it.


With all due respect, I don't subscribe to this mentality.  Even the police allow a few miles over the limit.  And regardless of the speed limit, if you've got a large stack of cars behind you, it's a nice gesture to pull over when it's easy and convenient to do so.


----------



## VTKilarney (Jan 7, 2016)

As I said, even the police don't issue tickets until you are a few miles over the limit.  So your interpretation of the law, from a real-world perspective, is yours alone - and not that of those who actually enforce it.

In any event, I never thought that it was up to me to teach strangers a lesson.  I'm happy to pull over and let people go about their way.  I think of it as paying it forward.  Just a different perspective, I guess.


----------



## deadheadskier (Jan 7, 2016)

uphillklimber said:


> Well, it's pretty simple. I drive the maximum allowed by law, totally a law abiding citizen, to the limit. Someone else wants to break the law, I'm not going to stop driving just because of some lawbreaker. I allow a realistic amount of time to get where I am going and drive safe and legal. Get yourself on the road on time.
> 
> There are plenty of places and opportunities to pass me daily, every single drive, and people will stay right behind me. Some will pass, good for them. The ones who don't, what can I say. I have had people pass me against the solid yellow line, no problems. They and I can both see it is clear, go for it. Why people wait for the dashed line, I don't get it. To pass me you have to break the law anyways, if it's safe, go for it. (BTW, I do not speed up on someone passing me, I keep driving the legal limit.)
> 
> ...



I hate to stereotype, but it's a Maine thing.  Y'all drive us bananas with your slow driving. To be fair, Northern NH and all of VT drivers aren't much better.  State Highways where the speed limit is 40-55; 8mph over the limit won't get you a ticket.  Except for in known speed trap areas where whiney locals think because they bought property adjacent to a state highway that all the speed limits should be 35, so they bitch to town police for strict enforcement OR Johnny Law is looking to justify his pay check through extorting money from tourists.  Sorry you picked the wrong place to live.  Plenty stretches of 26 where 70 mph is safe tbh.  

And don't get us started on the left lane lounging you do on 95 going 70 in that lane thinking that's acceptable because you're going 5mph over the limit. So, many Maine drivers do this I swear it's taught in drivers ed.  It's the passing lane, not a travel lane; pull the eff over. 

Love your hospitality up there, but get a move on.  Us visitors will get to our destinations faster, happier and spending money more freely. I make good time to the River and maybe I grab a quick breakfast sandwich in Bethel because I've got plenty of time to make first chair.  I get aggravated by pokey drivers and I skip it  See? Your too lawful driving hurts the local economy!!!!!  

/rant

:lol:


----------



## ironhippy (Jan 7, 2016)

uphillklimber said:


> With all due respect, I'm a law abiding citizen up to the limit of the law. I will not stop driving on account of lawbreakers.



it's funny just above you encouraged breaking the law by passing you on solid yellow lines.

If you are impeding the flow of traffic, you are safety hazard regardless of the speed limit. 
You will not be pulled over for going 10 over the limit when the entire flow of traffic is going that fast.

This is probably not the situation you are in, but it illustrates my point (start at 35 seconds)


----------



## ironhippy (Jan 7, 2016)

VTKilarney said:


> I'm happy to pull over and let people go about their way.  I think of it as paying it forward.  Just a different perspective, I guess.



I speed a fair amount, but when I am not in a hurry and people behind me are, I do this too. Sure it's not the law, but some common courtesy goes a long way.


----------



## VTKilarney (Jan 7, 2016)

ironhippy said:


> it's funny just above you encouraged breaking the law by passing you on solid yellow lines.


I noticed that too.  That's arguably much more dangerous than driving a few miles an hour over the posted limit.  Again, this is all based on the fiction that the posted limit is the maximum speed at which you can operate safely.  I'm not inclined to be self righteous when my whole premise is based on a fiction.


----------



## deadheadskier (Jan 7, 2016)

VTKilarney said:


> I noticed that too.  That's arguably much more dangerous than driving a few miles an hour over the posted limit.  Again, this is all based on the fiction that the posted limit is the maximum speed at which you can operate safely.  I'm not inclined to be self righteous when my whole premise is based on a fiction.



Not only much more dangerous, but a bigger fine and more points on your license than speeding.

UHK - did it ever occur to you that speed limits are set low purposefully to allow a little flexibility.

Live a little buddy!  Or be courteous if you're causing a traffic jam.


----------



## VTKilarney (Jan 7, 2016)

uphillklimber said:


> Again, if you can not get to where you are going on time because you got on the road too late, don't expect me to vacate the road for you. I have every right to drive on the road, same as you do.


Nobody here has said that you don't have the right to drive the speed limit.  But having a "right" doesn't mean that you should ignore general courtesy by taking twenty seconds to pull over where it's convenient to do so.  That's all people are trying to say.



uphillklimber said:


> Hey guys, having a lot of fun with this, but the River is calling!


You better leave plenty of time to get there!


----------



## SkiFanE (Jan 7, 2016)

UHK - you've proven my point about CR-V drivers!  I drive Rt 26 probably 40 times/year. I know every passing  zone and all speed limits. somehow as a lawbreaker going above the speed limit I've gone through all sorts of speed traps without a ticket. So my insurance has not been affected. If I'm obviously not considered a lawbreaker by those paid to uphold the law - you are an ass for using that as your reason for being a slowpoke. Because you're being an ass does not mean I will cross a double yellow line (which I am assured will get me a ticket) to pass you. I'm a lifelong Boston driver - I am great at tailing til the next passing zone 

just because I can fart in the line at the bank does not mean I do - because I'm corteous to those around me. Just because you're in a big steel box doesn't mean you shouldn't care about those around you.


----------



## deadheadskier (Jan 7, 2016)

bingo - it's about being courteous


----------



## VTKilarney (Jan 7, 2016)

Maine needs a law like Washington state's:
http://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=46.61.427

_On a two-lane highway where passing is unsafe because of traffic in the opposite direction or other conditions, a slow moving vehicle, behind which five or more vehicles are formed in a line, shall turn off the roadway wherever sufficient area for a safe turn-out exists, in order to permit the vehicles following to proceed. As used in this section a slow moving vehicle is one which is proceeding at a rate of speed less than the normal flow of traffic at the particular time and place._


----------



## deadheadskier (Jan 7, 2016)

I'd like to see more law enforcement like this


----------



## Bene288 (Jan 7, 2016)

deadheadskier said:


> I'd like to see more law enforcement like this



That is gold


----------



## ironhippy (Jan 7, 2016)

VTKilarney said:


> proceeding at a rate of speed less than the normal flow of traffic at the particular time and place.



Which follows my point that the speed limit is not as important as the flow of traffic, otherwise this would mention the posted speed limit.


----------



## ironhippy (Jan 7, 2016)

deadheadskier said:


> I'd like to see more law enforcement like this



Didn't I post that above? It shows up for me...


----------



## gmcunni (Jan 7, 2016)

deadheadskier said:


> bingo - it's about being courteous



isn't staying 2 seconds behind the person in front of you and obeying laws considered being courteous?


----------



## deadheadskier (Jan 7, 2016)

ironhippy said:


> Didn't I post that above? It shows up for me...



whoops, for some reason it didn't on my phone, but does on my PC.   my phone acts weird with the AZ app sometimes.

we're on the same page!!


----------



## deadheadskier (Jan 7, 2016)

gmcunni said:


> isn't staying 2 seconds behind the person in front of you and obeying laws considered being courteous?



as long as they're being courteous and not causing a traffic jam, I'm happy to stay two seconds behind.


----------



## Edd (Jan 7, 2016)

SkiFanE said:


> I'm a lifelong Boston driver - I am great at tailing til the next passing zone
> 
> .......Just because you're in a big steel box doesn't mean you shouldn't care about those around you.



Conflicting sentiments. Boston drivers are the living embodiment of not giving a f*** about the people around them.


----------



## cdskier (Jan 7, 2016)

deadheadskier said:


> I'd like to see more law enforcement like this



Whoa...a NJ trooper did that!? There have been numerous times on my commute to work in NJ that I've come across people in the left lane going well under the speed limit. Too bad that trooper wasn't around in those cases. That drives me nuts. I hate being forced to pass someone on the right. Usually I'll flash my high beams a couple times. If they don't move, then I pass on the right and lean on my horn while doing so. On multiple occasions as passing I've seen that the person is sitting on their cell phone talking...

As for someone going exactly the speed limit on a single lane road, I can't really argue too much with that. I'd argue even if there is a line of cars behind them that they are still not obligated to pull over. It might annoy me a bit if I was behind them, but as long as they are going the speed limit I'll deal with it. When I get to a passing zone, I'll pass if safe to do so.

Someone made a comment that if "everyone is going 10mph over the speed limit no one will be pulled over". I wouldn't count on that. It all depends on the mood of the cop. He might want to wait for someone going faster or he might just pick someone at random out of everyone doing 10mph over to pull over. Just because everyone is breaking the law doesn't mean it is ok. A cop can still pull anyone of those people over at their discretion. Personally I usually drive over the speed limit, but I'm not going to bash someone that follows the speed limit exactly in many cases (the big exception being on a multi-lane highway where they do this in the left lane...in that case move over to the right).


----------



## SkiFanE (Jan 7, 2016)

Edd said:


> Conflicting sentiments. Boston drivers are the living embodiment of not giving a f*** about the people around them.


LOL - naw....we are very courteous as long as the other person is driving appropriately. And tailing a car length is a survival skill - or else you get nowhere - because that gap is seen as me being courteous to the car moving in front of me.  The poor VT subie driver on Storrow Drive at 8a is probably the least courteous of all lmao (and don't worry - they'll be informed many times of that  )


----------



## deadheadskier (Jan 7, 2016)

SkiFanE said:


> LOL - naw....we are very courteous as long as the other person is driving appropriately. And tailing a car length is a survival skill - or else you get nowhere - because that gap is seen as me being courteous to the car moving in front of me.  The poor VT subie driver on Storrow Drive at 8a is probably the least courteous of all lmao (and don't worry - they'll be informed many times of that  )



Atta Girl!

We're not the assholes because we let people know when they're failing to properly assimilate to a higher standard of driving efficiency.  :lol:


----------



## Bene288 (Jan 7, 2016)

SkiFanE said:


> LOL - naw....we are very courteous as long as the other person is driving appropriately. And tailing a car length is a survival skill - or else you get nowhere - because that gap is seen as me being courteous to the car moving in front of me.  The poor VT subie driver on Storrow Drive at 8a is probably the least courteous of all lmao (and don't worry - they'll be informed many times of that  )



Seriously. I love the people from Maine and VT that I see on 128 trying to leave 5 car lengths between them. Nope.


----------



## SkiFanE (Jan 7, 2016)

uphillklimber said:


> Hey guys, You all are suffering from a form of misplaced anger. I am not the guy slowing you down. Take today's drive to the river, for instance. The school buses are done, commute is done, there was (almost) nobody coming the other way. I had one person behind me for much of the trip in. Every straightaway and passing zone, no one , and I mean no one, coming. If they can't figure out how to pass me, they seriously need to turn in the man card. Or maybe they were content to follow me, they weren't tailgating.
> 
> Someone mentioned courtesy here. How about being courteous enough to leave with a reasonable amount of time that you are not insisting people clear the road for you? Courtesy works both ways.
> 
> ...



who said anything about being late?  Just because I speed doesn't mean I'm late - just means I want to spend less time of my life in my car behind a slowpoke.  Consider yourself lucky you can go to SR on a weekday with no traffic whatsoever.  BTW - I am not a fast driver (anymore) - but in a 55mph speed zone I'll go about 62 and even through speed traps, not an issue.  i am driving safely, the roads and car are designed to handle it. The thing I am most scared of on rt 26 is hitting a deer bounding out into road (close call last winter - guy traveling in opposite lane hit deer dead center). Be better to hit one at 55 than 62.


----------



## VTKilarney (Jan 7, 2016)

uphillklimber said:


> Courtesy works both ways.


I haven't seen any indication of that from you.  You've gone through a lot of effort to justify why you will never pull over to let a bunch of cars stacked up behind you get by.  You are entitled to drive the way you want, but at least be honest about the fact that you don't give a rat's ass about who is stuck behind you.


----------



## SkiingInABlueDream (Jan 7, 2016)

deadheadskier said:


> I'd like to see more law enforcement like this



That is priceless, though I have to wonder if that slow driver was back in the left lane doing his slow roadblock thing a couple minutes after the cop was out of sight.


----------



## CoolMike (Jan 7, 2016)

uphillklimber said:


> I do not speed up on you in spite. I prefer you get off my butt. But I won't vacate the road because you left too late.



Driving home from Sugarbush every weekend last year I would always use the cruise control through Vermont.  I set the speed at a reasonable rate (usually Speed Limit +5 MPH).  Then I use the passing lane to pass slower traffic.  The vehicle has a speed up and speed down that increases the set speed by 1 MPH per click.  Most people I passed would speed up by +5 MPH as I start to pass them.

Sometimes people would speed up even more.  Once in a while you see a very slow driver, catch up to them from the horizon to being 3-4 car lengths behind them in a minute, and then move into the left lane.  By the time you are neck and neck with them they are driving your speed or faster.  If I am committed to passing I up the speed to overtake them, gain a reasonable distance and then move back into the slow lane.  2 minutes later I've dropped down to my cruising speed and they are a distant speck in my rear-view mirror.

Its the strangest thing about human nature but the overwhelming majority speed up considerably when passing.


----------



## hammer (Jan 7, 2016)

CoolMike said:


> Its the strangest thing about human nature but the overwhelming majority speed up considerably when passing.


People who do that when I'm in the opposing traffic lane passing get cut off...don't care about human nature, speeding up when traffic is overtaking you is unsafe (and I'm guessing it's actually illegal).

I also had a stupid deer hog up the road on me a few years back.  Clipped the legs and the deer limped off.  Damage appeared minor but still cost over $2K.  Would rather hit the deer than swerve off the road though.

If someone is going at/near the posted limit then why should they panic and pull over because a bunch of people behind him/her want to speed?


----------



## ironhippy (Jan 7, 2016)

uphillklimber said:


> Courtesy works both ways.





uphillklimber said:


> you are correct, I don't a rat's about who is behind me



Ok.


----------



## Scruffy (Jan 7, 2016)

deadheadskier said:


> ah man roark, you make me sad. lost another one
> 
> one step away from a minivan



Hey...didn't you just become a parent? I see a minivan with auto transmission and an auto opening sliding door in your future. :lol: Resistance is futile.


----------



## deadheadskier (Jan 7, 2016)

The Borg's drive minivans??  NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1


----------



## Smellytele (Jan 7, 2016)

deadheadskier said:


> The Borg's drive minivans??  NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1



You will be assimilated.


----------



## deadheadskier (Jan 7, 2016)

My brother's GF drives a Mazda MPV minivan with manual transmission.  Maybe I can work out a trade.  Then there's always the not so trusty VW Microbus.  

I won't go down without a fight


----------



## drjeff (Jan 7, 2016)

deadheadskier said:


> My brother's GF drives a Mazda MPV minivan with manual transmission.  Maybe I can work out a trade.  Then there's always the not so trusty VW Microbus.
> 
> I won't go down without a fight



I'm happy to say that my wife and I have made it through 12 years of parenthood without owning a minivan! Granted we're fully into the larger SUV world to handle our kid carrying needs, but there isn't currently, nor has there ever been a vehicle in the garage that has had a sliding side door! 

Although I must admit some some of the minivans out there that I've seen are pretty nice inside.....


----------



## Edd (Jan 7, 2016)

If $ and practicality weren't a concern, the Toyota AWD minivan or a Cadillac AWD station wagon would be my ski cars of choice. Roomy, smooth riding, and snow capable. Yes.


----------



## darent (Jan 7, 2016)

drjeff said:


> I'm happy to say that my wife and I have made it through 12 years of parenthood without owning a minivan! Granted we're fully into the larger SUV world to handle our kid carrying needs, but there isn't currently, nor has there ever been a vehicle in the garage that has had a sliding side door!
> 
> Although I must admit some some of the minivans out there that I've seen are pretty nice inside.....


i am in that club also, raised 4 kids and never owned a minivan. always had 4wd truck and a ford escape type suv


----------



## hammer (Jan 7, 2016)

drjeff said:


> I'm happy to say that my wife and I have made it through 12 years of parenthood without owning a minivan! Granted we're fully into the larger SUV world to handle our kid carrying needs, but there isn't currently, nor has there ever been a vehicle in the garage that has had a sliding side door!


Same here, never had a minivan...after our son was born my wife always wanted an SUV.  Every time we'd go to get a new family vehicle (all of three times once we had kids) I would bring up the possibility of getting a minivan and it would be promptly dismissed.


----------



## AdironRider (Jan 7, 2016)

Out here in Wyoming, if you have more than three cars backed up behind you and you don't pull over, you get the ticket. 

I'm pretty sure UHK has jaywalked before, or used an aerosol can in a manner other than directed. Hypocrite! 

And can't you pass on double yellows in VT? Doesn't help in Maine but I do like that in VT for getting around me first types like Uphill.


----------



## SkiFanE (Jan 7, 2016)

All hail the minivan!!!!!  After 3rd kid traveling 80% of all weekends to Maine in a grand Cherokee, with 3 kids and a dog became tough. So we looked at 3 row SUVs, and they just didn't seem practical enough - not as easy to get into back row.  But we needed AWD.  We looked at a few. Then I saw a sienna on the road with AWD label.  So we swung by Toyota dealer to check it out and the highlander. When the salesman opened the hatchback - OMG, I was sold. Seriously.  My eyes bulged at the space back there.  So we bought it. Priciest car I ever bought. When we showed up to brig it home the salesman asked "aren't you excited?"  I said "NO! When I'm spending this kind of $ on a convertible I'll be happy" lol. 

Our 2006 is at 180k miles and has been a work horse. We can fit 5 people, a dog, a week of groceries/clothes AND 4 bikes inside the van. We travel to lake house in summer, so making that Maine drive all year.  Daughter used it to move to her college house - fits a mattress. Fits everything. SUV can't compare. I totally understand how no one wants one - but there is a reason people love them. Hopefully will last 2 more years and then we'll get a small 4 dr pickup - I swore that was our first and last van and we'd run it into ground!


----------



## deadheadskier (Jan 7, 2016)

uphillklimber said:


> Seriously, do you all hear yourselves?
> 
> Because you drive faster..... er.... you drive better...... or even because you drive different, when you come up upon me driving the posted legal limit, you are insistent that I am to be "courteous" to YOU,



You are missing the point entirely.  

When the MANY wish to proceed at a faster rate of speed than you the SINGULAR, the courtesy should fall on you to let the MANY pass by because you are the outlier; not them.  Call it automotive democracy.  Your desired speed shouldn't dictate that of the many. You're obviously in no rush; what's it to you to slide over for a few seconds and let the majority proceed at the speed they wish to drive?  It will save you a lot of aggravation of people tailgating you and you having to wave them by.  It will save everyone else a lot of aggravation because they won't be stuck behind someone holding up traffic.  Regardless of what the speed limit signs say, if you're causing traffic behind you, you're driving too slow.  

I also, practice what I preach.  My wife and I take long drives in the country all the time on the weekends where we're in no particular rush.  I'm cognizant of the fact that others most likely aren't out on a sight seeing cruise.  I pull over and let faster traffic pass.  Maybe they're on their way to work..... 

And I say all of this (and I'm sure it's true of others commenting) not because I'm an unsafe maniac speed demon behind the wheel.  I've been driving for 24 years.  I've had three speeding tickets in my life time.  The last one occurred in 2001.  The other two in 1992 within six months of getting my license. As Skifanee pointed out, it's not about leaving on time.  It's about wanting to spend less time traveling.


----------



## gmcunni (Jan 7, 2016)

deadheadskier said:


> You are missing the point entirely.
> 
> When the MANY wish to proceed at a faster rate of speed than you the SINGULAR, the courtesy should fall on you to let the MANY pass by because you are the outlier; not them.  Call it automotive democracy.  Your desired speed shouldn't dictate that of the many. You're obviously in no rush; what's it to you to slide over for a few seconds and let the majority proceed at the speed they wish to drive?  It will save you a lot of aggravation of people tailgating you and you having to wave them by.  It will save everyone else a lot of aggravation because they won't be stuck behind someone holding up traffic.  Regardless of what the speed limit signs say, if you're causing traffic behind you, you're driving too slow.
> 
> .



so because everyone wants to speed (break the law) it is OK and the lone law abiding citizen needs to concede?

so when they are rioting in the streets and looting it is OK to join them because everyone is doing it?


----------



## VTKilarney (Jan 7, 2016)

gmcunni said:


> so because everyone wants to speed (break the law) it is OK and the lone law abiding citizen needs to concede?
> 
> so when they are rioting in the streets and looting it is OK to join them because everyone is doing it?



That's the biggest straw man argument that I have seen in quite some time.


----------



## deadheadskier (Jan 7, 2016)

VTKilarney said:


> That's the biggest straw man argument that I have seen in quite some time.



+1

Gmcunni, I have great respect for you, but it's not like we're asking UHK to look the other way while we rob a bank.  This is the equivalent of asking UHK, "instead of standing in the way, let us take a walk across the street even though the crosswalk sign box has a hand up".   Going 5-8 mph over the speed limit on a state highway isn't a felony.  It may not seem like much to him, but for those of us traveling up from the flat lands; that bit of extra speed can create a 30-45 minute time savings over the course of a long drive.  Trying to save to time.  That's all people are trying to do.


----------



## gmcunni (Jan 7, 2016)

deadheadskier said:


> Gmcunni, I have great respect for you,


as i do you.



deadheadskier said:


> That's all people are trying to do.



i get it.. i speed, i've been stuck behind someone who "is in my way".  i curse and swear at them from my position too close to their rear bumper to be safe. but you guys are piling on.  not that UHK needs to be defended in any way, he's a honey badger, he don't give a shit (and he shouldn't).

it is like the left hand lane is for passing only argument .. get out of the left lane.. it is illegal to be there unless you are passing.  yes, going 85 in a 65 is illegal too but that doesn't matter, get out of my way.


----------



## gmcunni (Jan 7, 2016)

jan 7 and i have only skied basically a half day.. this season sucks


----------



## gmcunni (Jan 7, 2016)

btw, i had a 2008 CRV and thought it handled great in the snow.. better than the Pilot we had before that.  

i still vote for the Subi Outback for OP's SUV choice.


----------



## cdskier (Jan 7, 2016)

gmcunni said:


> it is like the left hand lane is for passing only argument .. get out of the left lane.. it is illegal to be there unless you are passing.  yes, going 85 in a 65 is illegal too but that doesn't matter, get out of my way.



Hah! I've made that same argument before to people and they never get it!


----------



## deadheadskier (Jan 7, 2016)

gmcunni said:


> btw, i had a 2008 CRV and thought it handled great in the snow.. better than the Pilot we had before that.
> 
> i still vote for the Subi Outback for OP's SUV choice.



Thanks for bringing us back on topic G!!!

:lol:


----------



## yeggous (Jan 7, 2016)

I started getting some prices on Outbacks today. Basically everything in stock is a Limited model over $30k. Ouch.

It looks like I can get a Premium trim for $28k.

Given the price point I've started to sweet talk my wife. I'm trying to convince her to take my Santa Fe and I'll drive her Elantra. Of course all of this is conditioned on her letting me get a Chevy Silverado 2500 to park next to the Elantra.


Sent from my iPhone using AlpineZone mobile app


----------



## gmcunni (Jan 7, 2016)

yeggous said:


> I started getting some prices on Outbacks today. Basically everything in stock is a Limited model over $30k. Ouch.



our 2015 outback ltd (2.5l) was 32 or 33.  

but wife loves it, declared it her fav car ever.


----------



## yeggous (Jan 7, 2016)

gmcunni said:


> our 2015 outback ltd (2.5l) was 32 or 33.
> 
> but wife loves it, declared it her fav car ever.



Yes, but at that price I can get a truck. I'd much rather have the truck.


Sent from my iPhone using AlpineZone mobile app


----------



## gmcunni (Jan 7, 2016)

yeggous said:


> Yes, but at that price I can get a truck. I'd much rather have the truck.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using AlpineZone mobile app



you are in the car biz, did you check the subaru vip program ?

http://vip.subaru.com/vip/index.jsp



> THE SUBARU OF AMERICA (SOA) VIP PARTNERS PROGRAM
> 
> 
> Introduction
> ...


----------



## VTKilarney (Jan 8, 2016)

uphillklimber said:


> Clearly, I am in a rush, or I'd be doing 10 or 15 below the limit.


Time to move to Florida.


----------



## SkiFanE (Jan 8, 2016)

VTKilarney said:


> Time to move to Florida.



Winner winner chicken dinner!!!!


----------



## dlague (Jan 8, 2016)

uphillklimber said:


> Still, I have the feeling that when you folks are driving thru, none of you give a rats about any other driver, if they are not driving at your "style", you are insistent they get off the road and let you motor on thru. Oh yes, because we are the majority....



like skiing!?


Sent from my iPhone using AlpineZone


----------



## deadheadskier (Jan 8, 2016)

uphillklimber said:


> Still, I have the feeling that when you folks are driving thru, none of you give a rats about any other driver, if they are not driving at your "style", you are insistent they get off the road and let you motor on thru. Oh yes, because we are the majority....



How are you any different? You expect others to stick behind you and drive your "style."

Contrary to what you say, there really aren't a lot of passing lanes or zones on 26.  Where there are dashed yellows, oncoming traffic is often present as 26 is a well traveled road.  And your suggestion to pass you where there are double yellows doesn't hold water.  Doing so is far more dangerous than driving 5-10mph over the speed limit and the ticket/insurance penalties reflect this. People may want to drive a little over the limit, but they don't want to be unnecessarily reckless on the roads.

However, there are plenty of places on 26 with wide shoulders or break down lanes that you can slide over to, still maintain your desired speed and let others through at their desired speed.  

I'm not going to waste any more time with this.  I'll just leave you with this concept.  Speed limits are set to be broken within reason.  Where it's 55 mph on 26 it's okay to go 60-62.  That's why the majority of people are looking to go that speed.  The traffic safety administration knows this and intentionally sets it low.  If they set the limit at 60, the majority will try and go 65-67 and onward and upward. Ever drive I95 North of Bangor? Limit is 75. Most people drive 80-85 up there.  If they raised the limit to 80, 85-90 would be the norm.  You'll likely never get a ticket driving the norm (being what most folks do) if you do one simple thing. Tap the breaks when you see a cop and briefly slow down.  Give the illusion you weren't meaning to drive that fast and they will let it slide.  

Anyways, it's been fun. Despite the efforts of the many to convince you to heed to majority opinion, you've got your preferences.  So, be it.  I'm out of this debate.

Stay safe out there!


----------



## hammer (Jan 8, 2016)

OK, so I get this straight...

I'm going on a single-lane highway at/near the speed limit but I'm obligated to pull over if someone comes up behind me and wants to pass?  Really?

If I'm not familiar with the roads or the de facto speed limit (which cannot be assumed to be 5-10 over the posted limit since there may be speed traps), I will go close to the posted speed limit.  I will do my best to stick to that if traffic is behind me but I never feel obligated to pull over to let faster traffic pass me.  If they want to pass on the left they are welcome to do so, and I won't speed up while they are doing it.


----------



## VTKilarney (Jan 8, 2016)

hammer said:


> OK, so I get this straight...
> 
> I'm going on a single-lane highway at/near the speed limit but I'm obligated to pull over if someone comes up behind me and wants to pass?  Really?


You've really missed the point people are trying to make.  All people are saying is that, if there is a stack of cars behind you, it's courteous to pull toward the side of the road for a few seconds and let people by.  Not a single person suggested that you should pull over every time a car comes up behind you.  And nobody stated that there was an obligation to pull over.  So pretty much everything you said was incorrect.  But nice try.

I agree that this debate has become tiresome.  UHK makes Highway Star look reasonable.  You can only ask for courtesy for so long.


----------



## hammer (Jan 8, 2016)

VTKilarney said:


> You've really missed the point people are trying to make.  All people are saying is that, if there is a stack of cars behind you, it's courteous to pull toward the side of the road for a few seconds and let people by.  Not a single person suggested that you should pull over every time a car comes up behind you.
> 
> I agree that this debate has become tiresome.  UHK makes Highway Star look reasonable.  You can only ask for courtesy for so long.


Fair enough.  Guess I usually drive fast enough so that I don't have a stack of cars behind me.  Unfortunately most people who I see in that situation (where I'm part of the stack) are oblivious to what is happening behind them.


----------



## deadheadskier (Jan 8, 2016)

VTKilarney said:


> All people are saying is that, if there is a stack of cars behind you, it's courteous to pull toward the side of the road for a few seconds and let people by.  Not a single person suggested that you should pull over every time a car comes up behind you.  And nobody stated that there was an obligation to pull over.



That's the nutshell of the debate.  Well said


----------



## Tin (Jan 8, 2016)




----------



## VTKilarney (Jan 8, 2016)

uphillklimber said:


> At any point have I said I won't do that?????



Yes, in post #182 you said:


uphillklimber said:


> But I won't vacate the road because you left too late.



And from post #185:


uphillklimber said:


> And you are correct, I don't a rat's about who is behind me, they are free to pass me.



And from post #165:


uphillklimber said:


> Again, if you can not get to where you are going on time because you got on the road too late, don't expect me to vacate the road for you. I have every right to drive on the road, same as you do.!



And let's not forget post #153:


uphillklimber said:


> I'm not going to stop driving just because of some lawbreaker.



Also post #157:


uphillklimber said:


> I will not stop driving on account of lawbreakers.



And post #159:


uphillklimber said:


> But I will not vacate the road on account of you not getting on the road in time.



Next question, please.


----------



## VTKilarney (Jan 8, 2016)

uphillklimber said:


> VTKlarney, I am talking about a single driver, not a stack of cars......


Odd.  Other than one person asking a question, nobody else was talking about a single driver.


----------



## VTKilarney (Jan 8, 2016)

Thank you.


----------



## Smellytele (Jan 8, 2016)

Are we there yet?


----------



## MEtoVTSkier (Jan 8, 2016)

Smellytele said:


> Are we there yet?



Bahahaha!


----------



## moresnow (Jan 8, 2016)

Can we get back on track here?

You should try to find one of these. 

https://youtu.be/-cwDtWYS-6Q

Should make an excellent ski car, and not at all what you are looking for.

You're welcome.


----------



## hammer (Jan 8, 2016)

moresnow said:


> Can we get back on track here?
> 
> You should try to find one of these.
> 
> ...



My wife's first car was an 88 Honda Civic sedan.  Great little car...solid and quiet for a car of its size and cost.  Only issue was starting, with the carburetor it could be cranky when cold.


----------



## roark (Jan 8, 2016)

hammer said:


> My wife's first car was an 88 Honda Civic sedan.  Great little car...solid and quiet for a car of its size and cost.  Only issue was starting, with the carburetor it could be cranky when cold.


and a terrible defroster. (also a former civic owner - my mom is still driving that thing with nearly a half million miles on it!)


----------



## yeggous (Jan 8, 2016)

My sister suggested the Ford Edge and Nissan Murano. I'm planning to check those out. But I'm starting to get emotionally attached to a Silverado.


Sent from my iPhone using AlpineZone mobile app


----------



## Scruffy (Jan 8, 2016)

yeggous said:


> My sister suggested the Ford Edge and Nissan Murano. I'm planning to check those out. *But I'm starting to get emotionally attached to a Silverado.
> *
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using AlpineZone mobile app



If you're anything like me, you're done then :lol:  Once I get to the "I got to have it" phase, nothing else will do.


----------



## xwhaler (Jan 8, 2016)

yeggous said:


> My sister suggested the Ford Edge and Nissan Murano. I'm planning to check those out. But I'm starting to get emotionally attached to a Silverado.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using AlpineZone mobile app



Nice truck.  Pickups are great ski vehicles and provide all around awesome utility.  I love my Toyota Tundra for ski trips and the Tacoma I had before that.


----------



## BenedictGomez (Jan 8, 2016)

My brother has a Ford Edge and he thinks it's a piece of poop.   I generally concur.


----------



## deadheadskier (Jan 8, 2016)

Careful! The owner of this forum drives an Edge.  :lol:


----------



## gmcunni (Jan 8, 2016)

deadheadskier said:


> Careful! The owner of this forum drives an Edge.  :lol:



i wouldn't be too worried....


----------



## Brad J (Jan 8, 2016)

The new edge is nice, worth taking a look, Trucks are nice but I am not sure about the low 30's for one that I would want for a pleasure vehicle, I would want to many bells and whistles and drive up the price to high


----------



## deadheadskier (Jan 8, 2016)

gmcunni said:


> i wouldn't be too worried....
> View attachment 18452



Snap!

:lol:


----------



## drjeff (Jan 8, 2016)

cdskier said:


> Hah! I've made that same argument before to people and they never get it!





deadheadskier said:


> Careful! The owner of this forum drives an Edge.  :lol:



Not for long likely given the kick ass job Mrs Nick is doing in her business adventures these days!!


----------



## steamboat1 (Jan 9, 2016)

steamboat1 said:


> Thule box. You'll get the 7 pairs of skis in, even boots & poles, then have enough room for 3 6ft' heroes (you guys might call them hogies, subs or grinders, have no idea). Been there done that.





dlague said:


> We have the Thule Evolution and fitting 7 pair of adult skis is a stretch not to mention other things you mention.  I ski on 186 skis and they are too long for the box.  As a result they go in last and lay diagonal and that tweaks it while closing.



You obviously don't have the same box as me. The Evolution box comes in different lengths & widths. I have the longest, widest model. Not only do the skis fit length wise (I ski 182's) there's room for ski boots behind them also. While not 7 pairs of skis, boots, poles I had 4 pairs of skis, boots, poles in mine & three 6ft. heroes on top with room to spare. Even had a large bag with all our hat's, gloves & goggles in there too. Drove all the way from NYC to VT. like that without issue.


----------



## Highway Star (Jan 9, 2016)

Have you looked at the Toyota Venza or Toyota Highlander?  Both are pretty huge internally and should have no problem with many pairs of skis and 3 people.


----------



## x10003q (Jan 9, 2016)

The Ford Flex is another option.


----------



## Bene288 (Jan 9, 2016)

x10003q said:


> The Ford Flex is another option.



Hideous looking. But probably a very practical ski vehicle.


----------



## Smellytele (Jan 9, 2016)

Highway Star said:


> Have you looked at the Toyota Venza or Toyota Highlander?  Both are pretty huge internally and should have no problem with many pairs of skis and 3 people.



Saw a new Highlander today and they seem to have gotten a shit load smaller


----------



## Bumpsis (Jan 9, 2016)

BenedictGomez said:


> My brother has a Ford Edge and he thinks it's a piece of poop.   I generally concur.


I agree. Had a rental for a few days. Although fairly nice to drive,  horrible design in terms of space. Big on the outside and ridiculously  small cargo capacity for something that big and heavy.
I also have personal bias against Fords which probably influenced by opinion.


----------



## deadheadskier (Jan 9, 2016)

Smellytele said:


> Saw a new Highlander today and they seem to have gotten a shit load smaller



Really? I thought the newer version seemed bigger. 

 I seem to recall the Highlander being introduced as a midsize option to slot between the 4runner and RAV4.  Then the Highlander kept growing and now seems larger than the 4Runner to me.


----------



## x10003q (Jan 9, 2016)

Bene288 said:


> Hideous looking. But probably a very practical ski vehicle.



True on both accounts. I rented one when my wagon was in for repairs. It holds a ton, rides very nice and we got about 24 mpg for the weekend. It looks like a modern hearse.:wink:


----------



## Highway Star (Jan 9, 2016)

Smellytele said:


> Saw a new Highlander today and they seem to have gotten a shit load smaller



Highway Star is always wrong syndrome. New gen is 2.7" longer and a whopping 463 lb heavier.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toyota_Highlander 

I bet the Venza and Highlander can both fit a pair of 175's straight in, not diagonal.  Maybe even 185's with the front seat in a normal position.


----------



## yeggous (Jan 9, 2016)

I have not yet looked at the Highlander. I did check out the Venza. It is surprisingly big but has been discontinued.


Sent from my iPhone using AlpineZone mobile app


----------



## Highway Star (Jan 9, 2016)

yeggous said:


> I have not yet looked at the Highlander. I did check out the Venza. It is surprisingly big but has been discontinued.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using AlpineZone mobile app



I didn't know the Venza was discontinued.  Looks like there are still a few 2015's floating around.  Maybe $5k less than a similar Highlander if you can get a deal. Also 500lb lighter and a 10% better gas mileage.


----------



## xwhaler (Jan 9, 2016)

I really like the Venza actually. It was our #2 choice when we were SUV shopping a few yrs ago.  My aunt has one and loves it.  I'd get it over the Highlander


----------



## andrec10 (Jan 10, 2016)

Highway Star said:


> I didn't know the Venza was discontinued.  Looks like there are still a few 2015's floating around.  Maybe $5k less than a similar Highlander if you can get a deal. Also 500lb lighter and a 10% better gas mileage.



Highway Star did not know something! OMG, what is this world coming too.......


----------



## Smellytele (Jan 10, 2016)

Highway Star said:


> Highway Star is always wrong syndrome. New gen is 2.7" longer and a whopping 463 lb heavier.
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toyota_Highlander
> 
> I bet the Venza and Highlander can both fit a pair of 175's straight in, not diagonal.  Maybe even 185's with the front seat in a normal position.



Ya that's it like I give a fuck about proving you wrong  - Just stating I saw one and it looked smaller. They seem to have rounder it out and it looked smaller than the boxer ones in the past.


----------



## yeggous (Jan 10, 2016)

I drove trucks today. Started with the F-150 which I really liked. Next was the Tundra which underwhelmed in comparison. Finally the Silverado. I need to go back and compare the F-150 and Silverado 1500. I liked the ride and interior style of the F-150. The Chevy seems more heavily discounted which gives you better features for the price.


Sent from my iPhone using AlpineZone mobile app


----------



## HD333 (Jan 11, 2016)

My Dad just went through this exercise. He went with a new 2015 Silverado.  He felt the interior was roomier in the Chevy compared to the F150. They are heavily discounting the 
15's too. He happened to find one on the lot that had everything he wanted so he lucked out. 
I guess I have a truck to take stuff to the dump in now!  


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Bene288 (Jan 11, 2016)

yeggous said:


> I drove trucks today. Started with the F-150 which I really liked. Next was the Tundra which underwhelmed in comparison. Finally the Silverado. I need to go back and compare the F-150 and Silverado 1500. I liked the ride and interior style of the F-150. The Chevy seems more heavily discounted which gives you better features for the price.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using AlpineZone mobile app



I've personally owned all of these. Feel free to PM if you want an unbiased opinion.


----------



## xwhaler (Jan 11, 2016)

yeggous said:


> I drove trucks today. Started with the F-150 which I really liked. Next was the Tundra which underwhelmed in comparison. Finally the Silverado. I need to go back and compare the F-150 and Silverado 1500. I liked the ride and interior style of the F-150. The Chevy seems more heavily discounted which gives you better features for the price.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using AlpineZone mobile app


Curious what you didn't like about the Tundra...I have an 07 and love it but have not looked at the new ones in comparison to the competition.


----------



## yeggous (Jan 11, 2016)

xwhaler said:


> Curious what you didn't like about the Tundra...I have an 07 and love it but have not looked at the new ones in comparison to the competition.



The F-150 had a very nice driver-facing interface and felt more connected to the road. Toyota gave you more for the money, but...

The cabin felt more cramped.
Fuel mileage was noticeably lower.
Dash layout was not as intuitive or friendly.


Sent from my iPhone using AlpineZone mobile app


----------



## Cannonball (Jan 11, 2016)

yeggous said:


> The F-150 had a very nice driver-facing interface and felt more connected to the road. Toyota gave you more for the money, but...
> 
> The cabin felt more cramped.
> Fuel mileage was noticeably lower.
> Dash layout was not as intuitive or friendly.



Biggest difference to me between those is resale.  Own that Tundra for 10 years and sell it for what you paid.  Own that Ford for 10 years and pay someone to take it.

I bought my last Tundra used.  Drove it for 5 very hard years of boat hauling and farm work.  Crashed it very bad but the insurance company wouldn't total it since it had so much value still.  Had it repaired, then sold it for barely ~$1K under what I originally paid. I would have been very happy to keep it but I was looking to downsize for MPGs.  I miss that truck big time. 

Look at some used trucks if you want to verify this.


----------



## Bene288 (Jan 11, 2016)

Cannonball said:


> Biggest difference to me between those is resale.  Own that Tundra for 10 years and sell it for what you paid.  Own that Ford for 10 years and pay someone to take it.
> 
> I bought my last Tundra used.  Drove it for 5 very hard years of boat hauling and farm work.  Crashed it very bad but the insurance company wouldn't total it since it had so much value still.  Had it repaired, then sold it for barely ~$1K under what I originally paid. I would have been very happy to keep it but I was looking to downsize for MPGs.  I miss that truck big time.
> 
> Look at some used trucks if you want to verify this.



+1 cannot beat the Yota in quality and resale. Best of the three in my experience with them, as far as performing like a truck. But if your more interested in toys and gimmicks the Ford and GM win.


----------



## yeggous (Jan 25, 2016)

To tie off the original topic, I pulled the trigger on a 2016 Chevy Silverado 1500 LT Double Cab with the All-Star package, V8, all-terrain tires, and nav system. I added a bed liner and hard rolling tonneau cover which is really slick. We took the new truck to North Conway to ski Shawnee Peak and Bretton Woods this weekend.

My wife is especially happy with the purchase as:
1) it has a remote start via the OnStar app so it is warmed when we get to it
2) with all the gear in the covered bed she can put her seat all the way back and take a nap on the way home
3) she can take it to buy plants from the nursery in the spring


----------



## Terry (Jan 26, 2016)

yeggous said:


> To tie off the original topic, I pulled the trigger on a 2016 Chevy Silverado 1500 LT Double Cab with the All-Star package, V8, all-terrain tires, and nav system. I added a bed liner and hard rolling tonneau cover which is really slick. We took the new truck to North Conway to ski Shawnee Peak and Bretton Woods this weekend.
> 
> My wife is especially happy with the purchase as:
> 1) it has a remote start via the OnStar app so it is warmed when we get to it
> ...



Awesome choice. I probably saw you at Shawnee. Was there both days. It was skiing pretty well.


----------



## Rushski (Jan 26, 2016)

Definitely a good choice.  If I had needed the full size, I would have bought pretty much exactly the same.


----------



## HD333 (Jan 26, 2016)

yeggous said:


> To tie off the original topic, I pulled the trigger on a 2016 Chevy Silverado 1500 LT Double Cab with the All-Star package, V8, all-terrain tires, and nav system. I added a bed liner and hard rolling tonneau cover which is really slick. We took the new truck to North Conway to ski Shawnee Peak and Bretton Woods this weekend.
> 
> My wife is especially happy with the purchase as:
> 1) it has a remote start via the OnStar app so it is warmed when we get to it
> ...



How do you like the  hard rolling tonneau cover?
My dad just bought a Silverado and he want to add some type of cover. 
Was that a dealer arson or did you go elsewhere ?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## yeggous (Jan 26, 2016)

This is what I bought:
http://bakindustries.com/p-30253-revolver-x2-hard-rolling-tonneau-covers-overview.html

The dealer didn't stock any on-site so I found it on display at Car-Risma in Lowell. I ended up buying through the dealer (MacMulkin in Nashua) at a better price and they did the install along with the other prep. When I picked up the truck, the salesman said they he sold two more of them by showing off my truck with the cover in the one day it sat at the dealership.

It's much more expensive than a soft cover, comparable to a hard trifold, and significantly cheaper than a hard hinged cover. Expect to pay around $1000.

From a functionality perspective, I think it's the best compromise. The hard top is much more secure than a soft cover. It's not quite as secure as a bullet-proof hinged cover, but it more than gets the job done. With the hard metal cover, items are more secure in the bed than in the cab with glass windows. It rolls up out of the way and secures which makes it easier to use the full bed length than trifold or hinged cover would be. It just rolls and clicks into place which makes it easier to apply and remove than a roll-on soft cover.


----------



## dlague (Jan 26, 2016)

yeggous said:


> To tie off the original topic, I pulled the trigger on a 2016 Chevy Silverado 1500 LT Double Cab with the All-Star package, V8, all-terrain tires, and nav system. I added a bed liner and hard rolling tonneau cover which is really slick. We took the new truck to North Conway to ski Shawnee Peak and Bretton Woods this weekend.
> 
> My wife is especially happy with the purchase as:
> 1) it has a remote start via the OnStar app so it is warmed when we get to it
> ...



I was thinking about something like that as my next option.


----------



## HD333 (Jan 26, 2016)

yeggous said:


> This is what I bought:
> http://bakindustries.com/p-30253-revolver-x2-hard-rolling-tonneau-covers-overview.html
> 
> The dealer didn't stock any on-site so I found it on display at Car-Risma in Lowell. I ended up buying through the dealer (MacMulkin in Nashua) at a better price and they did the install along with the other prep. When I picked up the truck, the salesman said they he sold two more of them by showing off my truck with the cover in the one day it sat at the dealership.
> ...



Awesome. I'll pass that info along. Congrats on the truck. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## drjeff (Jan 26, 2016)

yeggous said:


> To tie off the original topic, I pulled the trigger on a 2016 Chevy Silverado 1500 LT Double Cab with the All-Star package, V8, all-terrain tires, and nav system. I added a bed liner and hard rolling tonneau cover which is really slick. We took the new truck to North Conway to ski Shawnee Peak and Bretton Woods this weekend.
> 
> My wife is especially happy with the purchase as:
> 1) it has a remote start via the OnStar app so it is warmed when we get to it
> ...



Congrats!  

I LOVE the Onstar App for my Acadia!!  It's also fun to "mess" with my kids when I know they're near my car (and I'm not) and I can use the App to sound the horn and surprise them!  :lol:


----------



## cdskier (Jan 26, 2016)

That rolling cover looks pretty neat. Congrats! I've always been a fan of Chevy's trucks.


----------



## Hawkshot99 (Jan 26, 2016)

HD333 said:


> How do you like the  hard rolling tonneau cover?
> My dad just bought a Silverado and he want to add some type of cover.
> Was that a dealer arson or did you go elsewhere ?
> 
> ...



I have the Pace Edwards Switchblade on my Tacoma. It works awesome. Very quick and easy to open or close.

I don't know what it would be for other models of trucks, but Auto Accessories Garage has them on sale for the Tacoma for $693 delivered as of last week. You need to use the ask a person pop up on their site as the price is lower than they are allowed to advertise.

I have a bed rack that is due via UPS today or tomarrow. It will allow me to sit my Thule box a few inches over the bed cover.


----------



## MEtoVTSkier (Jan 26, 2016)

Hawkshot99 said:


> I have a bed rack that is due via UPS today or tomarrow. It will allow me to sit my Thule box a few inches over the bed cover.



Hey, that sounds like a neat rack idea, put a picture up of it when you install it would ya?


----------



## Hawkshot99 (Jan 28, 2016)

MEtoVTSkier said:


> Hey, that sounds like a neat rack idea, put a picture up of it when you install it would ya?


Here it is.


----------



## MEtoVTSkier (Jan 28, 2016)

Looks pretty neat, thanks!

Never seen that mount before, but definitely will save the bed space for more stuff.


----------



## Whitey (Jan 28, 2016)

Hawkshot99 said:


> Here it is.



Dude, you stole my truck!     I've got the exact same one, probably a little older though.    Greatest ski trip vehicle ever.      

You've got the Toyota roof rack - why don't you just throw the Thule ski rack on there?   That's where I put mine (I also have the same exact Thule you do).    Also, why not just put a cap on the back?  I know the cap is more expensive but it gives you a lot more room.    I actually take my cap on and off summer (off) and winter (on).


----------



## hammer (Jan 28, 2016)

Whitey said:


> Dude, you stole my truck!     I've got the exact same one, probably a little older though.    Greatest ski trip vehicle ever.
> 
> You've got the Toyota roof rack - why don't you just throw the Thule ski rack on there?   That's where I put mine (I also have the same exact Thule you do).    Also, why not just put a cap on the back?  I know the cap is more expensive but it gives you a lot more room.    I actually take my cap on and off summer (off) and winter (on).



Maybe there would be a clearance issue in a garage...I could never leave my ski box on my Toyota Highlander because it would be too tall for the garage door.


----------



## Whitey (Jan 28, 2016)

hammer said:


> Maybe there would be a clearance issue in a garage...I could never leave my ski box on my Toyota Highlander because it would be too tall for the garage door.



Ahh, that does make sense.     I seem to be in the minority in that I take my Thule on and off when I use it.   But I've got a pretty good/easy/out of the way place to put it when I am not using it.    But if I was skiing more than I do (grrrrr. . .  kids,  grrrrr.... work, etc) then I am not sure that I would being taking mine on and off as much.


----------



## deadheadskier (Jan 28, 2016)

You need a Thule box AND have a cap on the back of a pickup?  How much crap do you haul with you? :lol:


----------



## hammer (Jan 28, 2016)

Whitey said:


> Ahh, that does make sense.     I seem to be in the minority in that I take my Thule on and off when I use it.   But I've got a pretty good/easy/out of the way place to put it when I am not using it.    But if I was skiing more than I do (grrrrr. . .  kids,  grrrrr.... work, etc) then I am not sure that I would being taking mine on and off as much.


My old box was a pain to install, so when I had a Subaru with a roof rack I put it on at the beginning of the season and left it there.  No issues with the garage and there wasn't much impact to gas mileage.

No longer a factor with my current car, it has a fold-down seat and pass-through which works out fine for me and my wife for day trips.


----------



## Whitey (Jan 28, 2016)

deadheadskier said:


> You need a Thule box AND have a cap on the back of a pickup?  How much crap do you haul with you? :lol:


 
Love it that way.   Keeps the skis out of the way, leaves the back open.    Yah - I've probably got plenty of room for everything in the back but I just got sick of bag straps getting hung up on ski brakes, piling stuff on top of the skis, etc.   Skis on top and stuff in the back & I'm happy.     There was a dog in the mix too when I first got the truck, had to leave room for the dog in the back too.


----------



## Hawkshot99 (Jan 28, 2016)

Whitey said:


> Dude, you stole my truck!     I've got the exact same one, probably a little older though.    Greatest ski trip vehicle ever.
> 
> You've got the Toyota roof rack - why don't you just throw the Thule ski rack on there?   That's where I put mine (I also have the same exact Thule you do).    Also, why not just put a cap on the back?  I know the cap is more expensive but it gives you a lot more room.    I actually take my cap on and off summer (off) and winter (on).



I did not want a cap because I have always disliked the look of them(wouldn't mind the sleeping room for summer though....)
I do have the factory roof rack, however the span is locked on the Tacoma.  I cant widen or shorten the gap, and my box does not fit on the roof.  The feet do not go that wide.  Also better fuel mileage behind the cab, I can remove the skis while standing on the ground (past 2 trucks I had roof boxes and hated having to climb up to get skis out), allows me to pull into all parking garages or drive thru, and I think it looks cool!




deadheadskier said:


> You need a Thule box AND have a cap on the back of a pickup?  How much crap do you haul with you? :lol:



Having a 4x4, crew cab, and the abbility to haul lots of gear I usually end up driving.  I have a 6' bed, and my smallest ski is a 178.  They need to go in at a angle, not a problem for 1 person, but takes up to much room for skis and bags for 4 people.  I dont even know if my 188 powder skis fit in the bed.


----------



## yeggous (Jan 29, 2016)

Hawkshot99 said:


> I did not want a cap because I have always disliked the look of them(wouldn't mind the sleeping room for summer though....)
> I do have the factory roof rack, however the span is locked on the Tacoma.  I cant widen or shorten the gap, and my box does not fit on the roof.  The feet do not go that wide.  Also better fuel mileage behind the cab, I can remove the skis while standing on the ground (past 2 trucks I had roof boxes and hated having to climb up to get skis out), allows me to pull into all parking garages or drive thru, and I think it looks cool!
> 
> 
> ...



My powder skis fit comfortably straight in my 6,6" bed on the Silverado. That is the solution: bigger truck. I have been averaging 17 mpg and getting 22 mpg on the highway.



Sent from my iPhone using AlpineZone mobile app


----------



## Whitey (Jan 29, 2016)

Hawkshot99 said:


> I do have the factory roof rack, however the span is locked on the Tacoma.  I cant widen or shorten the gap, and my box does not fit on the roof.  The feet do not go that wide.  Also better fuel mileage behind the cab, I can remove the skis while standing on the ground (past 2 trucks I had roof boxes and hated having to climb up to get skis out),



 I love the "fold away" style of the Toyota roof rack.    But yah - I had to scratch my head for a few minutes when I first went to put my Thule on that rack.    I ended up making 2 cables that go between the eye hooks on the rack.  I made them so they go on and off easily.    That's what I clamp onto.   If you have the Thule Atlantis it will sit on the rack OK, just what to attach the clamps to is the issue.   I can send you a picture of what/how I did mine if you ever want to throw your Thule on the roof.   Although I do have to say that the way you have it mounted does look pretty cool.  

Interesting thing is that I found myself using that "clamp to the cables" style mounting on all my cars.   I find that if you clamp it to the cross bars it sits much higher and is not as solid.   But resting it on the cross bars and using the cables to clamp and hold it down - that gives it a good low profile and is more solid.   Almost all roof racks have eye hooks in between the cross bars.   I've got too many kids going with us to the AZ summit to  take the Tacoma, so my Thule is currently happily sitting on the Ford Expedition - mounted the same way as the Tacoma even though the Ford has movable cross bars.   I was even able to use the same cables I made up for the Tacoma even though they are completely different vehicles.  

As I look at the picture of your truck, one thing you are missing are the Toyota step rails.  I have those on my Tacoma and it makes it a lot easier to get into the Thule.  You can stand on them and you are looking right into the Thule.    EASY  install too.   Pre-drilled/tapped holes already there on the truck.   A ratchet and about 15 minutes was all it took for me to install mine.   I think most of the aftermarket stuff would be OK too, I'd just want to be 100% sure that they mount to the existing holes so I wouldn't have to custom mount them.


----------



## cdskier (Jan 6, 2017)

First...sorry to bump this old thread.



VTKilarney said:


> I'd love to be one of those people that keeps a car until 300,000 miles on the odometer.  But my biggest fear is breaking down on a frigid night in the middle of nowhere.



My goal was 250, but looks like I'm going to fall short. I don't want to have to worry about breaking down on my weekly trip to and from VT.



cdskier said:


> Personally I have a 2007 Avalanche and am quite happy with it (215K). Too bad they stopped making it as I have no idea what I'll do when I eventually need to replace it. Although I probably wouldn't be able to afford what they would want for that thing today if they still made it. Prices on Chevy's PUs and larger SUVs are ridiculous...



I made this comment almost exactly a year ago...and here I now am at a point where with 237K miles on my Avalanche I'm now looking for a new truck. It mis-fired for a few seconds on the way home from work the other night. Stopped at my mechanic and he said see if it happens again. We had just replaced all the spark plugs and one of the ignition coils the end of November so he thought maybe another coil was going. I was a block away from the mechanic and it started mis-firing bad so went right back to leave it with him. He took a look at it today and there's no compression in one of the cylinders. One of the valve lifters is stuck/collapsed. He's also concerned there could be other problems that he finds once he takes the cylinder head off considering the age of the engine. At this point it doesn't make a lot of sense to potentially spend $2K or more on a truck with this many miles and risk having something else go wrong.



yeggous said:


> This is what I bought:
> http://bakindustries.com/p-30253-revolver-x2-hard-rolling-tonneau-covers-overview.html
> 
> The dealer didn't stock any on-site so I found it on display at Car-Risma in Lowell. I ended up buying through the dealer (MacMulkin in Nashua) at a better price and they did the install along with the other prep. When I picked up the truck, the salesman said they he sold two more of them by showing off my truck with the cover in the one day it sat at the dealership.
> ...



And this brings me to the reason I searched for this thread in the first place... I remembered yeggous mentioning this rolling cover and wanted to see if there was any additional feedback on it. I'm considering buying a GMC Canyon or Chevy Colorado and think this rolling cover might be exactly what I would want to get for the bed. Thoughts?


----------



## yeggous (Jan 6, 2017)

cdskier said:


> First...sorry to bump this old thread.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I love that bed cover. It works great! Totally the best choice you can make on covers. Rolling hard top for the win.

The Silverado Double Cab with 6.5' bed is the sweet spot. You can fit the skis straight in the bed. It's crazy the amount of gear I can haul. Right now I have 12 pairs of skis and 3 duffle bags in my bed. And you have a 4-door cab to keep your boot bag warm.


Sent from my iPhone using AlpineZone mobile app


----------



## skifree (Jan 6, 2017)

i have used a trifecta for last 10 yrs.
http://www.extang.com/trifecta-folding-tonneau-covers.html
love it. no hardware needed. easy on/off. 
i run a f150 quad cab . tons of room. longer bed is the key. (6 1/2 ft bed).


----------



## cdskier (Jan 9, 2017)

yeggous said:


> I love that bed cover. It works great! Totally the best choice you can make on covers. Rolling hard top for the win.
> 
> The Silverado Double Cab with 6.5' bed is the sweet spot. You can fit the skis straight in the bed. It's crazy the amount of gear I can haul. Right now I have 12 pairs of skis and 3 duffle bags in my bed. And you have a 4-door cab to keep your boot bag warm.



Awesome to hear. I thought about the Silverado, but it is just bigger than I'd like/need. I don't see a need to upsize from my Avalanche. The Canyon/Colorado is a bit narrower than the Avalanche, but with a Crew Cab/Long Box it is actually still a few inches longer.

Now I just need GM to offer some incentives/rebates on the Canyon or Colorado. A local dealer has pretty much the exact Canyon that I'd want, but there are absolutely no deals available from GM so he feels bad selling it as he's thinking maybe GM will announce some deals in the next few weeks. If I had been looking a week earlier, there were over 4K in deals available from GM on the Canyon at the time.


----------



## Hawkshot99 (Jan 9, 2017)

cdskier said:


> First...sorry to bump this old thread.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I have a Pace Edward's Switchblade retractable cover on my Tacoma. I have a 6' bed so skis can go in straight, but I have a Thule box mounted above my bed. Crew cab means plenty of room for friends.
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





Sent from my SM-G930F using AlpineZone mobile app


----------



## Rushski (Jan 10, 2017)

A guy at work said he was car shopping over the weekend, an he discussed roof rack options...

The salesman wasn't concerned as he mentioned he could fold up his skis.  Yep, the commonly seen folding skis!


----------



## cdskier (Feb 12, 2017)

Well finally ended up buying a leftover 2016 Crew Cab Long Box Canyon a little over a week ago complete with the hard rolling cover which I think is great so far (thanks yeggous!).

Took it up to VT this weekend and loved it. So nice being able to stick skis straight in with the long box. Even driving back to NJ through the storm today it seemed to handle quite well.


----------



## yeggous (Feb 12, 2017)

cdskier said:


> Well finally ended up buying a leftover 2016 Crew Cab Long Box Canyon a little over a week ago complete with the hard rolling cover which I think is great so far (thanks yeggous!).
> 
> Took it up to VT this weekend and loved it. So nice being able to stick skis straight in with the long box. Even driving back to NJ through the storm today it seemed to handle quite well.
> 
> View attachment 21827



Congrats! Two thumbs up!


Sent from my iPhone using AlpineZone mobile app


----------

