# small suv  good in snow



## gmcunni (Nov 2, 2016)

looking to replace aging 4 door sedan with a used small/mid-sized SUV with good snow performance. 

Yes, i know, it is all about the tires! That said, anyone have recommendations on a good small SUV?  have had a Honda CRV and would happily pick another.  considering a Forester too.  No experience with Mazda (cx5) or Toyota (Rav4), any comments?  Other choices?

prefer the hatchback style of SUV rather over an AWD sedan.


----------



## yeggous (Nov 2, 2016)

gmcunni said:


> looking to replace aging 4 door sedan with a used small/mid-sized SUV with good snow performance.
> 
> Yes, i know, it is all about the tires! That said, anyone have recommendations on a good small SUV?  have had a Honda CRV and would happily pick another.  considering a Forester too.  No experience with Mazda (cx5) or Toyota (Rav4), any comments?  Other choices?
> 
> prefer the hatchback style of SUV rather over an AWD sedan.



Consumer Reports compared the Honda, Toyota, and Subaru AWD systems. Toyota's is garbage. Subaru did best, but budget money for the well documented head gasket failures. Honda's was okay on the CRV, and quite good on the Pilot. The Audi Quattro system is excellent.

The Hyundai and Kia system was not included in the tests. We have a Santa Fe and it has been great. I chase snow all over the place and it has never flinched. Having the AWD lock helps. Plus Hyundai and Kia are now rated among the most reliable brands (according to Consumer Reports), well above both Honda and Subaru. Mazda has similar reliability but I know nothing about their AWD system.


Sent from my iPhone using AlpineZone mobile app


----------



## gmcunni (Nov 2, 2016)

yeggous said:


> Consumer Reports compared the Honda, Toyota, and Subaru AWD systems. Toyota's is garbage. Subaru did best, but budget money for the well documented head gasket failures. Honda's was okay on the CRV, and quite good on the Pilot. The Audi Quattro system is excellent.
> 
> The Hyundai and Kia system was not included in the tests. We have a Santa Fe and it has been great. I chase snow all over the place and it has never flinched. Having the AWD lock helps. Plus Hyundai and Kia are now rated among the most reliable brands (according to Consumer Reports), well above both Honda and Subaru. Mazda has similar reliability but I know nothing about their AWD system.
> 
> ...



thanks, hadn't thought about Hyundai.  Looks like Santa Fe has little brother, Tucson.  will check them both out.   I think we had Santa Fe last spring in Colorado during a freak blizzard and it drove great.


----------



## JDMRoma (Nov 2, 2016)

I currently have 3 Rav4s, 2015 XLE, 2013 Limited and 2008 Limited. 
Prior to the Ravs I had an AWD Matrix.... actually 2 of them. Always ran snows on the matrix and now on my limited just picked up a set.  
I never had any issues with any of them mechanically or in the snow. Granted it's not a chevy 3/4 ton in the snow but it's by no means garbage.

I haven't driven the rav with snows on it yet but it didn't suck without them. 

Last 2 Toyotas I bought extended warranties that went unused. 
Nothing but brakes,belts and tires

Just my $.02


Sent from my iPhone using AlpineZone


----------



## andrec10 (Nov 2, 2016)

2013 Outback or later. Newer engine.


----------



## Scruffy (Nov 2, 2016)

http://www.torquenews.com/1084/awd-crossover-challenge-2014-forester-smokes-field


----------



## yeggous (Nov 2, 2016)

JDMRoma said:


> I currently have 3 Rav4s, 2015 XLE, 2013 Limited and 2008 Limited.
> Prior to the Ravs I had an AWD Matrix.... actually 2 of them. Always ran snows on the matrix and now on my limited just picked up a set.
> I never had any issues with any of them mechanically or in the snow. Granted it's not a chevy 3/4 ton in the snow but it's by no means garbage.
> 
> ...



I think you having only Toyotas is the bias. Try something else and you may be surprised. No doubt they are reliable though. Incidentally I do have a Chevy 3/4 ton and 1/2 ton in my driveway right now. 

Here is the Consumer Reports video. Pause it for a screen shot on their Consumer survey results on snow handling:
http://www.consumerreports.org/vide...subaru-forester-vs-honda-cr-v-vs-toyota-rav4/

There is a clear relation between size and handling. Big 4x4 handles better. The Tucson and Mazda are on the not-so-good list. The Tucson not being as good as the Santa Fe may be like the CRV not being as good as the Pilot. I don't know about the difference in the Hyundai systems, but it's a completely different mechanical system between the Honda SUVs.


Sent from my iPhone using AlpineZone mobile app


----------



## cdskier (Nov 2, 2016)

My dad has a Pilot. I'm personally not a fan of driving it in general (but I drive an Avalanche myself, so take my opinion with a grain of salt as I probably wouldn't be happy in any small/mid-size SUV). The snow performance of the Pilot with stock tires I thought was average at best. Even locally in NJ I'd feel it slipping with small amounts of snow on the roads. With real snow tires it seems much better, although there weren't a ton of opportunities last year to drive it in the snow.


----------



## yeggous (Nov 2, 2016)

In forgot to mention...
Ground clearance is a big factor that goes a long way to explaining all those test results and rankings. The Subarus and larger SUVs have a higher clearance. I made sure the Santa Fe had a bit higher clearance than the Forester when I have shopping. Clearance does not make a big difference on slick it snow-packed pavement but matters a lot of unplowed driveways.


Sent from my iPhone using AlpineZone mobile app


----------



## JDMRoma (Nov 2, 2016)

yeggous said:


> I think you having only Toyotas is the bias. Try something else and you may be surprised. No doubt they are reliable though. Incidentally I do have a Chevy 3/4 ton and 1/2 ton in my driveway right now.
> 
> Here is the Consumer Reports video. Pause it for a screen shot on their Consumer survey results on snow handling:
> http://www.consumerreports.org/vide...subaru-forester-vs-honda-cr-v-vs-toyota-rav4/
> ...



I watched the video , interesting. 
Find it odd that they tested on snow with all season tires but yeah I know they all had all season.  

And not all All season tires handle well in deeper snow that was on the test course. 

Before my Toyotas I owned all Chevy trucks until the gas prices went through the roof. I plowed for years..... I get it. 
Last truck was a Chevy HD crew cab
It was unstoppable in the snow. Great plow truck and the best tow vehicle I ever owned. Yup there's no substitute for a full size Chevy. That I totally agee with. 



Sent from my iPhone using AlpineZone


----------



## WoodCore (Nov 2, 2016)

andrec10 said:


> 2013 Outback or later. Newer engine.



Or the 3.6L motor. On my second 6 cylinder without issue. 256 HP, plenty of giddy up. Makes that 4 car pass on a twisty section of VT 100 just a walk in the park.


----------



## andrec10 (Nov 2, 2016)

WoodCore said:


> Or the 3.6L motor. On my second 6 cylinder without issue. 256 HP, plenty of giddy up. Makes that 4 car pass on a twisty section of VT 100 just a walk in the park.



I have the 3.6 in my 2015 Legacy. Has plenty of get up and go!


----------



## yeggous (Nov 2, 2016)

cdskier said:


> My dad has a Pilot. I'm personally not a fan of driving it in general (but I drive an Avalanche myself, so take my opinion with a grain of salt as I probably wouldn't be happy in any small/mid-size SUV). The snow performance of the Pilot with stock tires I thought was average at best. Even locally in NJ I'd feel it slipping with small amounts of snow on the roads. With real snow tires it seems much better, although there weren't a ton of opportunities last year to drive it in the snow.



Your reply motivated me to dig deeper. The Pilot only got Acura's AWD system with torque vectoring starting with the 2016 model year. Prior years are probably less capable.


Sent from my iPhone using AlpineZone mobile app


----------



## deadheadskier (Nov 2, 2016)

Maybe look into the new VW Golf All Track? I'm assuming it has the same AWD system as Audi without paying for the luxury brand premium.

I'm a huge Mazda homer for their driving dynamics and the very good reliability I've enjoyed. That said, I've read the AWD system on the CX5 is just mediocre.

Sent from my XT1565 using AlpineZone mobile app


----------



## yeggous (Nov 2, 2016)

deadheadskier said:


> Maybe look into the new VW Golf All Track? I'm assuming it has the same AWD system as Audi without paying for the luxury brand premium.
> 
> I'm a huge Mazda homer for their driving dynamics and the very good reliability I've enjoyed. That said, I've read the AWD system on the CX5 is just mediocre.
> 
> Sent from my XT1565 using AlpineZone mobile app



I've driven the AWD Golf hatchbacks in Europe. Those are some sweet cars. But they are terribly overpriced in the states. For whatever reason Audi reliability is great but VW... not so much.


Sent from my iPhone using AlpineZone mobile app


----------



## machski (Nov 2, 2016)

deadheadskier said:


> Maybe look into the new VW Golf All Track? I'm assuming it has the same AWD system as Audi without paying for the luxury brand premium.
> 
> I'm a huge Mazda homer for their driving dynamics and the very good reliability I've enjoyed. That said, I've read the AWD system on the CX5 is just mediocre.
> 
> Sent from my XT1565 using AlpineZone mobile app


He said looking at used, those won't be available as such for a while.  Plus, I'm not a fan of VW putting just the 1.8L in that.  It was suppose to be TDI as well, which would have been awesome except for some emission cheating scandal.


----------



## deadheadskier (Nov 2, 2016)

yeggous said:


> I've driven the AWD Golf hatchbacks in Europe. Those are some sweet cars. But they are terribly overpriced in the states. For whatever reason Audi reliability is great but VW... not so much.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using AlpineZone mobile app


The new Golf All Track isn't a hatchback. It's a rebadged Jetta Sportwagen with more ground clearance and AWD.  I think the base model starts around $26K

Sent from my XT1565 using AlpineZone mobile app


----------



## Scruffy (Nov 2, 2016)

http://jalopnik.com/5240271/2009-subaru-forester-unsupervised-off-road-mayhem


----------



## 4aprice (Nov 3, 2016)

gmcunni said:


> thanks, hadn't thought about Hyundai.  Looks like Santa Fe has little brother, Tucson.  will check them both out.   *I think we had Santa Fe last spring in Colorado during a freak blizzard and it drove great.*



Glad to hear that as we have a Santa Fe out in Colorado under the care of our son at UC.  Had plenty of power for the mountains when we were out there in August so as long as she's ok in the snow we are golden.

Alex

Lake Hopatcong, NJ


----------



## Not Sure (Nov 3, 2016)

Kia Sorento , gas mileage not great at 16.5 but great in the snow , Wife has an EX with larger engine .


----------



## Whitey (Nov 3, 2016)

Buy yourself a 4 door toyota tacoma, put a cap on the back, some decent tires, and about 3-400 lbs of sandbags in the back when it snows.   And then never worry about getting anywhere, anytime, in any conditions ever again.    Best ski trip vehicle ever.  

I am on my 3rd Tacoma, each one went well over 200K miles with nothing much more than tires, brakes, and maintenance.


----------



## Smellytele (Nov 3, 2016)

Whitey said:


> Buy yourself a 4 door toyota tacoma, put a cap on the back, some decent tires, and about 3-400 lbs of sandbags in the back when it snows.   And then never worry about getting anywhere, anytime, in any conditions ever again.    Best ski trip vehicle ever.
> 
> I am on my 3rd Tacoma, each one went well over 200K miles with nothing much more than tires, brakes, and maintenance.



No issue with a rotting frame?


----------



## cdskier (Nov 3, 2016)

yeggous said:


> Your reply motivated me to dig deeper. The Pilot only got Acura's AWD system with torque vectoring starting with the 2016 model year. Prior years are probably less capable.



Makes sense...his Pilot is probably about 2-3 years old.


----------



## dlague (Nov 3, 2016)

JDMRoma said:


> I watched the video , interesting.
> Find it odd that they tested on snow with all season tires but yeah I know they all had all season.
> 
> And not all All season tires handle well in deeper snow that was on the test course.
> ...



I have never bought snow tires for my truck or car.  For that past 5 years I was driving a Chrysler Aspen (glorified Durango) and I used All Season tires.  I have driven in the worst storms even up Bolton Valley's road while vehicles of all types like Audi, VW, Subaru, Honda CRV, some pickups and others were all spinning on all four sliding sideways down the road when trying to drive up.  My SUV never flinched, I had all season tires.  We then proceeded to drive to  Jay Peak to ski there the next day in almost white out conditions.

The moral of this is - my truck weighed about 6000 lbs.  The weight alone helps a lot.  My truck also had wide tires which I also think helped as well.  Having the option to have not only AWD with traction control but to have locking options both high and low 4WD is huge as well.  That truck m=never failed me in any condition wet slush, snow over ice, deep snow etc.  I know this vehicle is not in the scope of small to mid sized but the point is the bigger they are the harder they fall.  BTW, the truck before that was an Expitition which also did extremely well, both were gas hogs (the main downside).

I think the smaller SUV's while they have the features are not heavy and they often do not have the clearance which is a concern of mine.  That being said, my truck died with 335,000 miles and we recently  bought a used Audi A6 AWD.  I will be curious to see how that works in snow but we are also looking at a small/mid sized SUV as a second car. So I will be interested in what is discussed.  I think my bar is high due to my last SUV.


----------



## deadheadskier (Nov 3, 2016)

Wide tires goes against conventional wisdom. Most snow tires tend to be slightly narrower than all seasons.  That combined with the siping gives snows a better chance of cutting through the snow and reaching pavement instead of going over the top of the snow.  Not doubting your experience, just explaining the physics.

Sent from my XT1565 using AlpineZone mobile app


----------



## Smellytele (Nov 3, 2016)

deadheadskier said:


> Wide tires goes against conventional wisdom. Most snow tires tend to be slightly narrower than all seasons.  That combined with the siping gives snows a better chance of cutting through the snow and reaching pavement instead of going over the top of the snow.  Not doubting your experience, just explaining the physics.
> 
> Sent from my XT1565 using AlpineZone mobile app



I have read that narrow tires are better as well. More pressure per sq inch on the road.


----------



## Jully (Nov 3, 2016)

I've always thought that snow tires were more important for stopping and turning in snow as opposed to initial pickup where weight and AWD are more important. Somewhere along the line I've heard the phrase that AWD doesn't influence much beyond 10mph in snow conditions, its weight and tires after that. I'd be interested to see how the heavier cars and trucks stop without snow tires. Weight can definitely be a substitute for good tires in most situations though, not disputing that!


----------



## yeggous (Nov 3, 2016)

Jully said:


> I've always thought that snow tires were more important for stopping and turning in snow as opposed to initial pickup where weight and AWD are more important. Somewhere along the line I've heard the phrase that AWD doesn't influence much beyond 10mph in snow conditions, its weight and tires after that. I'd be interested to see how the heavier cars and trucks stop without snow tires. Weight can definitely be a substitute for good tires in most situations though, not disputing that!



Queue the video:


----------



## billski (Nov 3, 2016)

I drove an Audi A6 from 2007 until last spring.  Winter snows on it.  The awd/tire combo was awesome in the snow AND ice, but the low clearance killed me once I started driving down dirt roads in the springtime and bottomed out in the mud.  Very close to needing a tow.   The repair bills got too much, so for half the price I got a Subaru Forester.  

Subaru was my first new car in '80.  Subaru made one vehicle back then a station wagon with two trim levels.  Phil & Steve Mahre drove one since Sub sponsored the USST.  I remember well the time we drove from Boston to LLBean with 12" unplowed on I-95.  It just chugged along.  

I then went into an anti-SUV war, and owned Saab, Toyota Avalon, Sienna minivan, all front wheel drive.  All were acceptable with snows on highway driving.  No backroads  Started having problems with these when my friend built a house at the top of a steep and very long (over a mile) dirt road.  

We'll see what the Forester brings this winter and spring.  I bought it for it's clearance, utility, size, mpg and reliability.  I use it all the time in my forest work on dirt/muddy roads and am pleased with it.  It's a vehicle you don't mind getting dirty, either inside or out.  It's mostly just me myself and I in it, so I wanted small-ish, to reduce my emissions and conserve fuel.   

I have a hard time going out in the wintertime these days without heated seats.  The Forester has so much visibility and a mega-big sunroof, that it makes me feel like I'm outdoors all the time.


----------



## billski (Nov 3, 2016)

Jully said:


> Somewhere along the line I've heard the phrase that AWD doesn't influence much beyond 10mph in snow conditions, its weight and tires after that. I'd be interested to see how the heavier cars and trucks stop without snow tires. Weight can definitely be a substitute for good tires in most situations though, not disputing that!



I can attest that AWD is very useful when you get all four tires stuck in the mud or uneven surface.

AWD has good acceleration from a standing stop on slippery surfaces.


----------



## billski (Nov 3, 2016)

yeggous said:


> In forgot to mention...
> Ground clearance is a big factor that goes a long way to explaining all those test results and rankings. The Subarus and larger SUVs have a higher clearance. I made sure the Santa Fe had a bit higher clearance than the Forester when I have shopping. Clearance does not make a big difference on slick it snow-packed pavement but matters a lot of unplowed driveways.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using AlpineZone mobile app



Ground.clearance.is.7.3.on.the.SantaFe.and.8.7.on.the.subaru.bought.a.subu.based.partly.on.this


----------



## ironhippy (Nov 3, 2016)

I liked my old 4wd trucks that would run in 2wd.

I would drive around in 2wd, the back end would slide when it was slippery. This would allow me to really get a feel for how slippery the road is. Accelerate too quickly? start to spin, therefore you know you need to be extremely cautious.

It keeps me on my toes. I feel like the AWD technology (or even 4wd if you just turn it on blindly) disconnects you from the conditions a bit. You step on the gas, the vehicle goes straight. This is great until you need to turn or stop suddenly. Without the technology I have a pretty good idea of how slippery the corners are and how much room I need to stop.

If the conditions are bad enough that I need to put it in 4wd, then I am not going fast (and no one else is on the road). This only happens in extreme ice or when there is more then 6 inches on the road unplowed.

Also I am cheap and an old truck costs a lot less than a new one.


----------



## yeggous (Nov 3, 2016)

billski said:


> Ground.clearance.is.7.3.on.the.SantaFe.and.8.7.on.the.subaru.bought.a.subu.based.partly.on.this



My Santa Fe is a 2011 which on paper has 8.1 inches vs Forester 8.7. But the reality is different as the paper clearance is the absolute minimum height of any piece of the car. That is a good number if you are worried about going over rocks, but snow is softer. Because snow moves a bit, its more important to have an higher average clearance underneath the car.

Forester:
http://i976.photobucket.com/albums/...Premium/STicat-backinstall_-4_zps4d31c830.jpg
With the Forester being a smaller vehicle, you'll see that its bottom on average sits lower and will create a good amount of drag against deep snow.

Santa Fe:
http://i237.photobucket.com/albums/ff16/bilalgtp/DSC01443.jpg
The Santa Fe has a much higher undercarriage on average. You'll see this exemplified by the under-mounted spare tire, whereas the Forester tire is in the "trunk".

The minimum ground clearance is practically fixed at the radius of the tires. Higher clearance requires larger and more expensive tires.

With an on average higher undercarriage, the Santa Fe will have less drag in deep snow. The Forester would be a bit better for clearing rocks with it's half inch higher minimum clearance. To see this point exemplified, my 2016 Chevy Silverado 4x4 has an 8.2" paper ground clearance. The 2011 Silverado had a 7.7" clearance. If I pulled that truck up next to a Forester there would be no question which would have more trouble in deep snow as most of the Silverado sits much higher off the ground.


----------



## JDMRoma (Nov 3, 2016)

yeggous said:


> Queue the video:



So basically AWD isn't as important as good snow tires.
AWD will get you moving but won't help in maneuvering in deep snow which basically throws out the test you posted before as they were all on All Season tires. 

Put all on the same snow tires and run the test. That's the only way to compare apples to apples. 




Sent from my iPhone using AlpineZone


----------



## yeggous (Nov 3, 2016)

JDMRoma said:


> So basically AWD isn't as important as good snow tires.
> AWD will get you moving but won't help in maneuvering in deep snow which basically throws out the test you posted before as they were all on All Season tires.
> 
> Put all on the same snow tires and run the test. That's the only way to compare apples to apples.
> ...



I have to think the relative results will be similar if all vehicles are on snow tires. Unfortunately a large majority of SUV owners run all season tires. That is most representative of the typical user experience.


Sent from my iPhone using AlpineZone mobile app


----------



## Whitey (Nov 3, 2016)

Smellytele said:


> No issue with a rotting frame?



2nd one.   Toyota bought it back for $1500 more than I had paid for it used over 7 yrs earlier.    I put 70K on that thing and they gave me more than I paid for it plus a bunch of incentives to but another one.   

Drove a fully loaded, brand new 4 door Tacoma off of the lot for about $13K after I threw them the keys to my POS 10 yr old truck (that I was thinking about getting rid of anyway).  

1st one had some rot, but it wasn't bad.  Gave it to a welding shop and they cut the rotted section out & welded some scabs on it for about $500.   I didn't have too much of an issue with that.   The truck had about 180K miles on it at the time I got the welding done and it lasted for about another 6 yrs and 50K miles after that.    Drove it to the junkyard under it's own power. . .  Junkyard gave me $200 for it.


----------



## Jully (Nov 3, 2016)

yeggous said:


> I have to think the relative results will be similar if all vehicles are on snow tires. Unfortunately a large majority of SUV owners run all season tires. That is most representative of the typical user experience.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using AlpineZone mobile app



I've always been amazed by how much confidence gets placed in all season tires. They're more of an average between summer tires and winter tires... not the best of both.


----------



## ironhippy (Nov 3, 2016)

Whitey said:


> 1st one had some rot, but it wasn't bad.  Gave it to a welding shop and they cut the rotted section out & welded some scabs on it for about $500.   I didn't have too much of an issue with that.   The truck had about 180K miles on it at the time I got the welding done and it lasted for about another 6 yrs and 50K miles after that.    Drove it to the junkyard under it's own power. . .  Junkyard gave me $200 for it.



Toyota has been "doing right" for the frame problem as far as I can see. 

1996 - 2000 Tacomas
- if the frame failed, Toyota bought the truck back from you from 1.5 the blue book value. Truck is sent to a junk yard (there is pick and pull by me that has all the failed Tacomas from my city).

2000 - 2004 Tacomas
- if the frame failed, Toyota would replace the frame (and anything that fell or needed to cut off the frame) for you. If you wanted any new parts put on the new frame, Toyota would do that free of charge (you had to pay for the part).

2005+ Tacomas
this is the 2nd generation, from 2005 - 2009 the frames were from the same bad source as the previous generation. Toyota is currently replacing any of those frames that fail.


I just sold my 2002 Tacoma that received a new frame in 2012. It was a great little truck and if it had 4 doors I would still have it. I am currently driving a 2005 4Runner.


----------



## mister moose (Nov 3, 2016)

deadheadskier said:


> Wide tires goes against conventional wisdom. Most snow tires tend to be slightly narrower than all seasons.  That combined with the siping gives snows a better chance of cutting through the snow and reaching pavement instead of going over the top of the snow.  Not doubting your experience, just explaining the physics.



"wide" is an incomplete description.  It's aspect ratio.  A big trend in cars lately is to equip them for good summer performance on low profile wider tires.  Whereas 75 series used to be the norm, it's common to see 50 series as factory equipment now.   Even 40 series on sporty models.  Great for handling.  Horrible for snow.  The 2016 Forester comes with a 17" wheel fitted with 60 series Geolanders.  This is NOT a good snow set up.  With most cars, wheel width and wheel well clearance limit fitting a higher aspect ratio tire for the winter.  The solution is finding a compatible narrower, smaller diameter wheel that will take a higher aspect tire that will fit in the wheel well.

The other huge difference is rubber compound, not just siping.  Snow tires remain softer and grippier in the winter. All seasons are harder at colder temps and behave more like hard plastic than a pencil eraser.

On the Tacoma comment, 4wd beats awd every time.  4wd also keeps the wheels turning even in braking, awd does not, or much less so.  However, pickups have a nasty habit of surprising you with a 360 or 720 on a curve.  The rear end lets go, and then wants to pass you.  If you've never experienced it, trust me, its an eye opener.  Seen it in 3 different trucks.

You'll realistically only see the difference driving to the hill in a snowstorm, getting up the driveway when it's unplowed, and getting through the unplowed parking lot at the hill.  Many folks don't drive in those conditions.  If you do, remember:

Snow tires count.
Higher aspect counts.  Get winter wheels with dedicated snows.
4WD counts.  Constant no limited slip power to front and back.  Static friction beats kinetic friction, ie you don't want the brake to be able to lock the wheel in low traction conditions.  (ABS just messes with you then)
Driver skill, more than anything, counts.

After those 4 I'd rank vehicle model choice. (For snow driving, obviously other factors come into vehicle choice)

FYI I drive a 4x4 Ranger and an AWD Forester.  Dedicated snows on dedicated rims for both.  Superb leg room in the Forester.  No issues at 15,000 miles.  Excellent crash worthiness.  Average mileage has been 29-31 mpg.  6 speed stick.


----------



## wa-loaf (Nov 3, 2016)

deadheadskier said:


> Maybe look into the new VW Golf All Track? I'm assuming it has the same AWD system as Audi without paying for the luxury brand premium.





deadheadskier said:


> The new Golf All Track isn't a hatchback. It's a rebadged Jetta Sportwagen with more ground clearance and AWD.  I think the base model starts around $26K


----------



## Whitey (Nov 3, 2016)

mister moose said:


> On the Tacoma comment, 4wd beats awd every time.  4wd also keeps the wheels turning even in braking, awd does not, or much less so.  However, pickups have a nasty habit of surprising you with a 360 or 720 on a curve.  The rear end lets go, and then wants to pass you.  If you've never experienced it, trust me, its an eye opener.  Seen it in 3 different trucks.



That's why you won't catch me up in the mountains on a snowy day/night without 3-400 lbs of sandbags in the back.   Doesn't 100% eliminate the fishtail effect of pickups, but does pretty well to reduce it to a minimum.   I find that on-demand 4WD helps a lot as most of the time when I've had a fishtail it's because I am in 2wd and the rear wheels break free when you accelerate and the rear tires spin out.


----------



## yeggous (Nov 3, 2016)

Whitey said:


> That's why you won't catch me up in the mountains on a snowy day/night without 3-400 lbs of sandbags in the back.   Doesn't 100% eliminate the fishtail effect of pickups, but does pretty well to reduce it to a minimum.   I find that on-demand 4WD helps a lot as most of the time when I've had a fishtail it's because I am in 2wd and the rear wheels break free when you accelerate and the rear tires spin out.



You need sandbags? Clear sign that you need to buy more ski gear. Works like a champ for me.


----------



## deadheadskier (Nov 3, 2016)

wa-loaf said:


> View attachment 20951


New ride for you?

Sent from my XT1565 using AlpineZone mobile app


----------



## hammer (Nov 3, 2016)

andrec10 said:


> 2013 Outback or later. Newer engine.


Hope you are right but will have to wait until enough of those vehicles gets the mileage up to where the problems usually occur.

Have had 2 Subarus, one a 1998 Outback that needed head gaskets at around 125K miles ($2000 not covered by warranty) and the other a 2009 Impreza that needed head gaskets at just under 80K miles (covered by goodwill warranty).  Aside from that they both were/have been pretty reliable.

If I get another Subaru in the future I would go for the 6 cylinder engine which from what I can tell has never had this issue.  FWIW I have found their AWD does better than the AWD systems I have had on Toyota and Volvo...but I didn't/don't have complaints on the Toyota or Volvo systems either.


----------



## yeggous (Nov 3, 2016)

hammer said:


> Hope you are right but will have to wait until enough of those vehicles gets the mileage up to where the problems usually occur.
> 
> Have had 2 Subarus, one a 1998 Outback that needed head gaskets at around 125K miles ($2000 not covered by warranty) and the other a 2009 Impreza that needed head gaskets at just under 80K miles (covered by goodwill warranty).  Aside from that they both were/have been pretty reliable.
> 
> If I get another Subaru in the future I would go for the 6 cylinder engine which from what I can tell has never had this issue.  FWIW I have found their AWD does better than the AWD systems I have had on Toyota and Volvo...but I didn't/don't have complaints on the Toyota or Volvo systems either.



The 6-cylinder drinks oil like a sailor on leave. So far this hasn't show to be correlated to mechanical failures, but is disconcerting at least.


----------



## hammer (Nov 3, 2016)

yeggous said:


> The 6-cylinder drinks oil like a sailor on leave. So far this hasn't show to be correlated to mechanical failures, but is disconcerting at least.


Oh well, guess that rules that one out as well.

Good thing for now is that my 2009 S40 is still running well at 112K miles.  Not in any hurry to take on a car payment.  Did have some front wheel bearing and transmission leak issues a few months ago but those seem to be resolved.

If I were in the market, I think I would be looking at a CUV.


----------



## yeggous (Nov 3, 2016)

hammer said:


> Oh well, guess that rules that one out as well.
> 
> Good thing for now is that my 2009 S40 is still running well at 112K miles.  Not in any hurry to take on a car payment.  Did have some front wheel bearing and transmission leak issues a few months ago but those seem to be resolved.
> 
> If I were in the market, I think I would be looking at a CUV.



Regarding the oil issue, the raw data:
http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/magazine/2015/06/excessive-oil-consumption/index.htm

The Talking Cars episode:


----------



## Hawkshot99 (Nov 3, 2016)

Whitey said:


> Buy yourself a 4 door toyota tacoma, put a cap on the back, some decent tires, and about 3-400 lbs of sandbags in the back when it snows.   And then never worry about getting anywhere, anytime, in any conditions ever again.    Best ski trip vehicle ever.
> 
> I am on my 3rd Tacoma, each one went well over 200K miles with nothing much more than tires, brakes, and maintenance.









Here is my ski day vehicle. I don't currently have a cap but I am keeping a eye out for a used one (refuse to pay $2k for a new one). I have a sliding tonnue cover and then the Thule box above the bed. I can carry a lot of gear and I think it looks cool. 
The long bed greatly helps over the shorter bed in the snow. I drove this truck only 1 time in the snow last year, but the tires on it truly sucked. I just ordered new AT tires this morning for it. Went with the largest size I can fit without a lift kit.
My dad has the same truck as me but older and it's done very well in the snow.

Sent from my SM-G930F using AlpineZone mobile app


----------



## Hawkshot99 (Nov 3, 2016)

When comparing tires for driving in snow different types of snow will require different tires designs. 
If driving on paved roads with soft snow you want a tall skinny tire. This will cut down to the pavement to get traction.
On deep bottomless snow while offroading you would want a wider tire to provide flotation.
Obviously both options would want a softer tire to get better bite.

Sent from my SM-G930F using AlpineZone mobile app


----------



## cdskier (Nov 3, 2016)

yeggous said:


> Regarding the oil issue, the raw data:
> http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/magazine/2015/06/excessive-oil-consumption/index.htm



From what article: 





> Audi, BMW, and Subaru stick firmly to the statement that oil consumption is a normal part of a car’s operation. Subaru considers a quart burned every 1,000 to 1,200 miles to be acceptable. Certain Audi and BMW cars’ standards state that a quart burned every 600 to 700 miles is reasonable.



Wow, and here it bothers me that my 07 Avalanche with 235K miles on it burns a quart every 3K miles or so.


----------



## Hawkshot99 (Nov 3, 2016)

yeggous said:


> The 6-cylinder drinks oil like a sailor on leave. So far this hasn't show to be correlated to mechanical failures, but is disconcerting at least.


My friends mom just got her v6 engine replaced in her 14 or 15 Subaru. It was drinking the oil down like crazy. They went and did a test and it used almost a quart in 500 miles, so she got a new engine.

Sent from my SM-G930F using AlpineZone mobile app


----------



## tree_skier (Nov 3, 2016)

my wife has a 15 forester and love it, son has a 13 Tiguan just got it so unsure of snow but he loves it. wife had a couple of pilots i hated the traction control, made it a horrible snow/ice vehicle, it cut power with wheel spin so going up a icey hill was awful.  but i will say this tires make all the difference.  With my Chevy silverado crew cab and studded snow i hardly ever feel the need to put it in four wheel.


----------



## xwhaler (Nov 3, 2016)

Hawkshot99 said:


> I drove this truck only 1 time in the snow last year, but the tires on it truly sucked. I just ordered new AT tires this morning for it. Went with the largest size I can fit without a lift kit.
> My dad has the same truck as me but older and it's done very well in the snow.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G930F using AlpineZone mobile app


Great looking Taco! I had an 08 4 cyl 5 spd Access Cab that I ran for 115k miles before trading in for an 07 Tundra (needed more space with 2 kids + dog)
I assume you had the Dunlop GrandTreks as the OEM tire?   If so, truly awful and Toyota should be embarrassed they put that poor excuse for a tire on any vehicle much less a 4x4 truck.
I was happy when I had a blowout and replaced them at 40k with Firestone AT's.

What did you end up going with? I just put the Falken Wildpeak ATW3's on my Tundra (Hybrid all terrain/mud terrain and has the severe snowflake symbol typically reserved only for dedicated snow tires.)
Can't wait to get them out in the snow


----------



## andrec10 (Nov 3, 2016)

Hawkshot99 said:


> My friends mom just got her v6 engine replaced in her 14 or 15 Subaru. It was drinking the oil down like crazy. They went and did a test and it used almost a quart in 500 miles, so she got a new engine.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G930F using AlpineZone mobile app



Subaru does not make a V6! They build a flat 6. That engine was a one off issue.


----------



## Hawkshot99 (Nov 3, 2016)

andrec10 said:


> Subaru does not make a V6! They build a flat 6. That engine was a one off issue.


V6, flat 6 Idk, just know she got a new engine cause it burned so much oil.

Sent from my SM-G930F using AlpineZone mobile app


----------



## Hawkshot99 (Nov 3, 2016)

xwhaler said:


> Great looking Taco! I had an 08 4 cyl 5 spd Access Cab that I ran for 115k miles before trading in for an 07 Tundra (needed more space with 2 kids + dog)
> I assume you had the Dunlop GrandTreks as the OEM tire?   If so, truly awful and Toyota should be embarrassed they put that poor excuse for a tire on any vehicle much less a 4x4 truck.
> I was happy when I had a blowout and replaced them at 40k with Firestone AT's.
> 
> ...


I bought the truck used at 40k. The tires were bald so I told the dealer "if you want me to buy it you need to put new tires on it". The originals were most likely the Dunlop.  The dealer replaced them with West Lake tires. Some shifty Chinese tires. They are rock hard and have no traction. I've put 20k on it, and approaching the wear bars....
The tires I bought are Hancook Dynapro ATM in a 265/70/17 so a inch taller. I looked at the Faulkens but they are a bit heavier.

Sent from my SM-G930F using AlpineZone mobile app


----------



## x10003q (Nov 3, 2016)

deadheadskier said:


> Maybe look into the new VW Golf All Track? I'm assuming it has the same AWD system as Audi without paying for the luxury brand premium.
> 
> I'm a huge Mazda homer for their driving dynamics and the very good reliability I've enjoyed. That said, I've read the AWD system on the CX5 is just mediocre.
> 
> Sent from my XT1565 using AlpineZone mobile app



In the US, VW mostly uses a Haldex awd system. It operates mostly as front wheel drive. This is in the Tiguan, Sportwagon, Golf R. It is also found in the Audi A3, S3, Q3. These are also transverse engines which is why they use Haldex. Many awd Volvos use Haldex, also. It is an electric and hydraulic system currently.

All other audis and the  VW Touareg and Porsche Cayenne use a mechanical Torsen center differential for the awd. These are all longitude mount engines. I have had Torsen/quattro audis and VWs since the late 1980s on all season tires and have never had any problems or issues dealing with snow.


----------



## delco714 (Nov 3, 2016)

Ford escape on blizzak..yeah..tank

Sent from my SM-N930V using Tapatalk


----------



## MEtoVTSkier (Nov 3, 2016)

Second dedicated winter set. Will take you anywhere.


----------



## RichT (Nov 3, 2016)

Subaru station wagon, we own four..........4cyl 28mpg nuff said.


----------



## skidder (Nov 3, 2016)

yeggous said:


> In forgot to mention...
> Ground clearance is a big factor that goes a long way to explaining all those test results and rankings. The Subarus and larger SUVs have a higher clearance. I made sure the Santa Fe had a bit higher clearance than the Forester when I have shopping. Clearance does not make a big difference on slick it snow-packed pavement but matters a lot of unplowed driveways.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using AlpineZone mobile app



Interested to hear the ground clearance comparison.  Didn't realize Subaru was that good.  Is it a better clearance than Pilot or CRV?



Sent from my iPhone using AlpineZone


----------



## Brad J (Nov 3, 2016)

I guess my 2016 Mustang GT will not be accepted in this discussion , but my 2005 mustang with 4 snow tires has made it to Wildcat in the worst storms. I grew up in the 60's and 70's where we had 2 wheel drives cars , studded snow tires and we always made it fine. you just need to be cautious and drive appropriate speeds. so Look for me at Wildcat during a big storm. The mustang is Black and its always the only one!!


----------



## cdskier (Nov 3, 2016)

Brad J said:


> I guess my 2016 Mustang GT will not be accepted in this discussion , but my 2005 mustang with 4 snow tires has made it to Wildcat in the worst storms. I grew up in the 60's and 70's where we had 2 wheel drives cars , studded snow tires and we always made it fine. you just need to be cautious and drive appropriate speeds. so Look for me at Wildcat during a big storm. The mustang is Black and its always the only one!!



Hah...my dad always talks about how he used to drive up to VT when he was young in his Datsun 240Z to go skiing!


----------



## billski (Nov 3, 2016)

*ground clearance*



skidder said:


> Interested to hear the ground clearance comparison.  Didn't realize Subaru was that good.  Is it a better clearance than Pilot or CRV?
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using AlpineZone


yes!

2016 models:

Forester 8.7
santa fe 7.4
rogue 7.4
Cherokee 8.7
renegade 6.7
Audi a6 4.6
cx5 8.5
outlander 8.5
tuscon 6.4
tiguan 7.9
pilot 7.3
crv 6.7

corrected date , added pilot and crv


----------



## billski (Nov 3, 2016)

yeggous said:


> You need sandbags? Clear sign that you need to buy more ski gear. Works like a champ for me.


  I stopped putting sand in the trunk when I sold my last rear wheel drive car.


----------



## billski (Nov 3, 2016)

yeggous said:


> The 6-cylinder drinks oil like a sailor on leave.


 So do Audis.  Stay on top of it,enjoy the ride.


----------



## skidder (Nov 3, 2016)

billski said:


> yes!
> 
> 1996 models:
> 
> ...



Great.  That is good to know.  Appreciate it.  


Sent from my iPhone using AlpineZone


----------



## billski (Nov 3, 2016)

Hawkshot99 said:


> My friends mom just got her v6 engine replaced in her 14 or 15 Subaru. It was drinking the oil down like crazy. They went and did a test and it used almost a quart in 500 miles, so she got a new engine.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G930F using AlpineZone mobile app


I've.a.new.forester.with.3k.miles.no.oil.loss


----------



## billski (Nov 3, 2016)

cdskier said:


> Hah...my dad always talks about how he used to drive up to VT when he was young in his Datsun 240Z to go skiing!


  I had a Datsun when I first moved here. Had to turn back at Gunstock, there was no heat.


----------



## billski (Nov 3, 2016)

Brad J said:


> I guess my 2016 Mustang GT will not be accepted in this discussion , but my 2005 mustang with 4 snow tires has made it to Wildcat in the worst storms. I grew up in the 60's and 70's where we had 2 wheel drives cars , studded snow tires and we always made it fine. you just need to be cautious and drive appropriate speeds. so Look for me at Wildcat during a big storm. The mustang is Black and its always the only one!!


I'm.with.you.that.snow.tires.trump.all."as.long.as.you.drive.on.paved.roads.


----------



## billski (Nov 3, 2016)

yeggous said:


> Clearance does not make a big difference on slick it snow-packed pavement but matters a lot of unplowed driveways.


I miss the real chrome steel bumpers.  They were perfect for plowing snow!


----------



## dlague (Nov 3, 2016)

billski said:


> I'm.with.you.that.snow.tires.trump.all."as.long.as.you.drive.on.paved.roads.


Thought the space bar was working now?

Sent from my SM-G930P using AlpineZone mobile app


----------



## yeggous (Nov 3, 2016)

billski said:


> I miss the real chrome steel bumpers.  They were perfect for plowing snow!



Buy a truck. My 2016 Chevy Silverado still has one.


Sent from my iPhone using AlpineZone mobile app


----------



## BenedictGomez (Nov 3, 2016)

I feel your pain.   Out of nowhere 2 weeks ago my beloved 2002 4x4 GMC Envoy developed a bad power-steering leak that my mechanic advised me to not bother repairing given the vehicle age & cost of repairs.

*R.I.P.

*Decided on a 2013 AWD GMC Acadia, which I've had for a week now.  

Picked it due to the AWD and beefy 4,800 lbs (I love heavy vehicles in snow) and a few other reasons.  Need to get a set of wheels and snow tires for it, it takes 19" all-seasons, so I'm thinking either 17" or 18" snow tires.  This will be my first vehicle where I have to buy tires with those stupid *** tire sensors in them, but I'm going to do it because I'll be danged if I'm going to have to pay someone to change my tires each winter.


----------



## Hawkshot99 (Nov 3, 2016)

BenedictGomez said:


> I feel your pain.   Out of nowhere 2 weeks ago my beloved 2002 4x4 GMC Envoy developed a bad power-steering leak that my mechanic advised me to not bother repairing given the vehicle age & cost of repairs.
> 
> *R.I.P.
> 
> ...



If-your-inspection-is-due-in-the-summer-you-can-just-ignore-the-light-saying-low-pressure-in-the-winter,and-skip-the-moniters.Just-make-sure-summer-tires/rims-on-when-inspection.


----------



## cdskier (Nov 3, 2016)

BenedictGomez said:


> Decided on a 2013 AWD GMC Acadia, which I've had for a week now.
> 
> Picked it due to the AWD and beefy 4,800 lbs (I love heavy vehicles in snow) and a few other reasons.  Need to get a set of wheels and snow tires for it, it takes 19" all-seasons, so I'm thinking either 17" or 18" snow tires.  This will be my first vehicle where I have to buy tires with those stupid *** tire sensors in them, but I'm going to do it because I'll be danged if I'm going to have to pay someone to change my tires each winter. [/SIZE][/SIZE]



I hope your luck with the Acadia is better than my dad's with the Traverse. His had to have been a few years older than yours though, so maybe they worked out the kinks on that platform. He was a Chevy/GM guy for years and was severely disappointed in the Traverse. I'm a Chevy guy too and didn't care for the Traverse at all.

As for the tire sensors, why do you not like them? I've had them for almost 10 years now and can't imagine going back to not having them. I just need to always remind my mechanic to relearn the sensors after swapping between my summer and winter tires. Takes him about 60 seconds with the programming tool. To do it manually without the tool is a pain as you have to either increase or decrease the pressure in each tire by a few PSI within a set amount of time on my truck when it is in sensor learning mode.


----------



## cdskier (Nov 3, 2016)

Hawkshot99 said:


> If-your-inspection-is-due-in-the-summer-you-can-just-ignore-the-light-saying-low-pressure-in-the-winter,and-skip-the-moniters.Just-make-sure-summer-tires/rims-on-when-inspection.



That would drive me nuts...I can't stand when any warning light comes on. I'll take sensors in each set of tires any day over having to ignore the warning for the entire winter.


----------



## dlague (Nov 3, 2016)

Hawkshot99 said:


> If-your-inspection-is-due-in-the-summer-you-can-just-ignore-the-light-saying-low-pressure-in-the-winter,and-skip-the-moniters.Just-make-sure-summer-tires/rims-on-when-inspection.


If you are using the same rims then I would imagine the pressure would be about the same so you should be fine.  If you use winter rims then have the tired mounted without the vehicle and put the tires on yourself.  Then ignore the dash light.  The air pressure sensors in my truck were always getting out of sync.

Sent from my SM-G930P using AlpineZone mobile app


----------



## wa-loaf (Nov 3, 2016)

deadheadskier said:


> New ride for you?
> 
> Sent from my XT1565 using AlpineZone mobile app



Need to sell back the TDi in the next year. Would love to get the Alltrack 6 speed. Family is pushing me to get a 3 row suv/minvan however. Will probably wait till Spring, like the looks of the Mazda CX9 and it's supposed to have a sporty drive and VW Atlas may be an option then too. Or I'll just listen to the kids fight on all our drives in the car I want ...


----------



## deadheadskier (Nov 3, 2016)

The new CX9 is a really sweet looking ride for sure.  If I were in the market for a 3 row, it would for sure be near the top of my list. 

I still can't believe the Golf All Track is going to be available with AWD and MT.  Pretty awesome alternative to the MT Forester.


----------



## wa-loaf (Nov 3, 2016)

deadheadskier said:


> I still can't believe the Golf All Track is going to be available with AWD and MT.  Pretty awesome alternative to the MT Forester.



Only thing missing is a diesel version ...


----------



## BenedictGomez (Nov 3, 2016)

Hawkshot99 said:


> If-your-inspection-is-due-in-the-summer-*you-can-just-ignore-the-light-saying-low-pressure-in-the-winter,and-skip-the-moniters*.Just-make-sure-summer-tires/rims-on-when-inspection.



Can I even buy wheels/tires without sensors anymore?   The two tire places I tried online made it seem like I had to buy sensors with the mounted tire packages, I just assumed it's the law now that they cant sell them mounted without sensors.  Not so?



cdskier said:


> I'm a Chevy guy too and *didn't care for the Traverse at all.*



Only had the Acadia a week, but loving it so far.  Very similar to my beloved Envoy, just a bit bigger and fancier.



cdskier said:


> *As for the tire sensors, why do you not like them?* I've had them for almost 10 years now and can't imagine going back to not having them.* I just need to always remind my mechanic *to relearn the sensors after swapping between my summer and winter tires.



That's why.

You need your "mechanic" to swap tires for you?  Seriously?   It's ridiculous.


----------



## cdskier (Nov 3, 2016)

BenedictGomez said:


> You need your "mechanic" to swap tires for you?  Seriously?   It's ridiculous.



Need? No. I could do it myself...but why waste my time? What takes him a few minutes with an impact wrench while my truck is up on the lift would take me a lot longer jacking each wheel up individually and changing each tire by hand. I don't need to "prove" something to anyone by swapping my own tires.


----------



## dlague (Nov 3, 2016)

hammer said:


> Oh well, guess that rules that one out as well.
> 
> Good thing for now is that my 2009 S40 is still running well at 112K miles.  Not in any hurry to take on a car payment.  Did have some front wheel bearing and transmission leak issues a few months ago but those seem to be resolved.
> 
> If I were in the market, I think I would be looking at a CUV.


My wife drove her S40 with all season tires during the winter and never really had an issue but I had my truck to skiing.  She finally gave it to our starving college kid with 211,000 miles on it and still going strong.

Sent from my SM-G930P using AlpineZone mobile app


----------



## Scruffy (Nov 3, 2016)

BenedictGomez said:


> This will be my first vehicle where I have to buy tires with those stupid *** tire sensors in them, but I'm going to do it because I'll be danged if I'm going to have to pay someone to change my tires each winter.



Don't get me started on those TPM sensors. It's another nanny state/grease the pockets of the tire mfgs. ruling. 
Stupid Feds making them required is insane. 

How many years did we have a simple valve, that worked just fine? Technology that stood the test of time. If a value went bad, it cost you a few bucks at garage or tire store to have replaced. It was so cheap to replace them, tire stores usually replaced them when you bought new tires for the price of mounting and balancing. People managed the air in their tire just fine when they had to. If a TPM sensor goes bad now, it can cost you anywhere from $100-$175 per tire, depending where you go to have it fixed and whether it's part of a tire purchase and install or just a TPM repair.  That's just crazy.


----------



## dlague (Nov 3, 2016)

Scruffy said:


> Don't get me started on those TPM sensors. It's another nanny state/grease the pockets of the tire mfgs. ruling.
> Stupid Feds making them required is insane.
> 
> How many years did we have a simple valve, that worked just fine? Technology that stood the test of time. If a value went bad, it cost you a few bucks at garage or tire store to have replaced. It was so cheap to replace them, tire stores usually replaced them when you bought new tires for the price of mounting and balancing. People managed the air in their tire just fine when they had to. If a TPM sensor goes bad now, it can cost you anywhere from $100-$175 per tire, depending where you go to have it fixed and whether it's part of a tire purchase and install or just a TPM repair.  That's just crazy.


I agree whole heartedly.  When I asked if they would take the out and put in normal valves they said they could not due regulations.

Sent from my SM-G930P using AlpineZone mobile app


----------



## bigbog (Nov 4, 2016)

Think the best vehicles in snow I've owned were my Xterra in 4WD and my front-wheel drive vehicle(92', low-profile Honda Accord), both with good snowtires.  Not much enlightenment to offer. 
Think your choice really depends on what most of the conditions you'll want to be driving in/on.


----------



## yeggous (Nov 4, 2016)

dlague said:


> I agree whole heartedly.  When I asked if they would take the out and put in normal valves they said they could not due regulations.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G930P using AlpineZone mobile app



Did you guys forget the whole Firestone tires / Ford Exploder ordeal? Many, many people died as a result. Your disregard for safety is concerning. Feel free to risk your own lives, but I'll be pissed when you kill my family after your under inflated tires explode and you lose control of your vehicle.


Sent from my iPhone using AlpineZone mobile app


----------



## JDMRoma (Nov 4, 2016)

BenedictGomez said:


> Can I even buy wheels/tires without sensors anymore?   The two tire places I tried online made it seem like I had to buy sensors with the mounted tire packages, I just assumed it's the law now that they cant sell them mounted without sensors.  Not so?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Yes you can buy them without the TPSM 
I honestly hate them and won't buy until they are required in the state inspection 

I'll gladly look at the little warning light all winter. 

Tire rack suggests you buy them ..... it's a money maker for sure. 


Sent from my iPhone using AlpineZone


----------



## MEtoVTSkier (Nov 4, 2016)

I buy them on Ebay for $68 for all four sensors  for my pickup trucks. Work great. Take the original sensors out when I buy new summer tires, and put them in the winter rims, and put the new ones in the summer rims. I used to look at the light all winter, but it was driving me nuts. I'll take having them over not any day now, and I don't find it that difficult to take the 2 minutes to manually reset the location when I swop them over or rotate. Put it in learn mode, drop 5lbs out of each, in order, confirm, then re-air. Should be checking your air pressures a couple times a year at least anyhow. Especially this time of year when the pressures drop due to cooler temperatures.

When in stock, they'll accept offers of $68, or they did for me.

http://www.ebay.com/itm/181749107291?_trksid=p2060353.m1438.l2649&ssPageName=STRK%3AMEBIDX%3AIT


----------



## SkiFanE (Nov 4, 2016)

I haven't read replies - but I'm a Mazda CX-5 owner.  Bought first year they were out. Absolutely love it. My hesitation with buying it was that it had shortest warranty of all. But the split seat arrangement won us over and overall driving.  It has 90k miles now and has never been to shop but for oil change and brakes. First new car I've ever had never needing a warranty repair. My daughter got in accident over summer - boohoo - but $6k front end fix and I can't even tell driving it.  Ours has small engine so it does drive like a dog. Going from a BMW to this almost killed me once trying to pop quickly into high speed lane - oops lol. But they now make a 6cyl which I would get. But it has manual override so can use that if want to be a quicker dog lol. 

Only bad thing in snow is the front wheel wells tend to clog with snow.  After a few hours of driving in snow and need to clear them out.  

I once rented a RAV4 when our van was broken and couldn't wait to get back to Mazda - just didn't feel "one with the road" like I do with mazda. 

Oh Bluetooth with iPhone is good but husband complains about his droid - we could probably get an upgrade ???  But it's a 2013 and I suspect it's better now. But compared to a recent Prius we rented it was much easier to operate I thought.


----------



## SkiFanE (Nov 4, 2016)

Whitey said:


> Buy yourself a 4 door toyota tacoma, put a cap on the back, some decent tires, and about 3-400 lbs of sandbags in the back when it snows.   And then never worry about getting anywhere, anytime, in any conditions ever again.    Best ski trip vehicle ever.
> 
> I am on my 3rd Tacoma, each one went well over 200K miles with nothing much more than tires, brakes, and maintenance.


 
We think this is our next car - to replace Sienna van. Has 190k and no signs of slowing down so - hoping for 2 more winters with van. Definitely need something to carry stuff with and we are always transporting bikes in back of van, so it'll be easier in a pickup.


----------



## KD7000 (Nov 4, 2016)

cdskier said:


> Need? No. I could do it myself...but why waste my time? What takes him a few minutes with an impact wrench while my truck is up on the lift would take me a lot longer jacking each wheel up individually and changing each tire by hand. I don't need to "prove" something to anyone by swapping my own tires.


Ha!  I consider my seasonal changeovers to be like a personal Nascar pit-crew contest.  Full size floor jack and cordless impact gun are fun toys.


----------



## wa-loaf (Nov 4, 2016)

KD7000 said:


> Ha!  I consider my seasonal changeovers to be like a personal Nascar pit-crew contest.  Full size floor jack and cordless impact gun are fun toys.



I'll be over after the soccer game Saturday ...


----------



## cdskier (Nov 4, 2016)

yeggous said:


> Did you guys forget the whole Firestone tires / Ford Exploder ordeal? Many, many people died as a result. Your disregard for safety is concerning. Feel free to risk your own lives, but I'll be pissed when you kill my family after your under inflated tires explode and you lose control of your vehicle.



Nice to see someone being sensible. I really don't get the arguments against the TPM Sensors. Sure people made do for many years without them, but that can be said for thousands of innovations over the years. Doesn't mean we should keep going back to the way things were years ago. Unless someone is manually checking their tire pressures every day, then TPM sensors give you a HUGE heads up on any potential problems earlier than you would notice on your own without them.


----------



## JDMRoma (Nov 4, 2016)

cdskier said:


> Nice to see someone being sensible. I really don't get the arguments against the TPM Sensors. Sure people made do for many years without them, but that can be said for thousands of innovations over the years. Doesn't mean we should keep going back to the way things were years ago. Unless someone is manually checking their tire pressures every day, then TPM sensors give you a HUGE heads up on any potential problems earlier than you would notice on your own without them.



When a tire is off by 10 PSI and it's not going off warning you ..... that's the problem. I've observed this over the years on Chevy,Kia and Toyota. 

They're for people who don't know enough to check their tires. 

Sorry don't need them for $200 extra 



Sent from my iPhone using AlpineZone


----------



## SkiFanE (Nov 4, 2016)

cdskier said:


> Nice to see someone being sensible. I really don't get the arguments against the TPM Sensors. Sure people made do for many years without them, but that can be said for thousands of innovations over the years. Doesn't mean we should keep going back to the way things were years ago. Unless someone is manually checking their tire pressures every day, then TPM sensors give you a HUGE heads up on any potential problems earlier than you would notice on your own without them.



ours have too any false negatives. In both cars they always seem to be on at some time. The day after getting brand new tires on one car it went on. So I wouldn't rely on them at all.


----------



## Smellytele (Nov 4, 2016)

cdskier said:


> I hope your luck with the Acadia is better than my dad's with the Traverse. His had to have been a few years older than yours though, so maybe they worked out the kinks on that platform. He was a Chevy/GM guy for years and was severely disappointed in the Traverse. I'm a Chevy guy too and didn't care for the Traverse at all.
> 
> As for the tire sensors, why do you not like them? I've had them for almost 10 years now and can't imagine going back to not having them. I just need to always remind my mechanic to relearn the sensors after swapping between my summer and winter tires. Takes him about 60 seconds with the programming tool. To do it manually without the tool is a pain as you have to either increase or decrease the pressure in each tire by a few PSI within a set amount of time on my truck when it is in sensor learning mode.



We have a 2009 Traverse and while it has had some issues - Timing belt replaced under warranty and a recall on the steering - it now has 170000 on it. It goes (and stops) well in the snow, fits all our gear(skis included) inside and has 3 rows of seats which is nice with 3 kids. The audio system has been the biggest pain in the ass. Water leaks into the wiring harness in the doors and shorts out individual speaker channels on the amp. I only half 3 out of 8 speakers left working. Well a 4th works sometimes.


----------



## wa-loaf (Nov 4, 2016)

Scruffy said:


> Don't get me started on those TPM sensors. It's another nanny state/grease the pockets of the tire mfgs. ruling.
> Stupid Feds making them required is insane.
> 
> How many years did we have a simple valve, that worked just fine? Technology that stood the test of time. If a value went bad, it cost you a few bucks at garage or tire store to have replaced. It was so cheap to replace them, tire stores usually replaced them when you bought new tires for the price of mounting and balancing. People managed the air in their tire just fine when they had to. If a TPM sensor goes bad now, it can cost you anywhere from $100-$175 per tire, depending where you go to have it fixed and whether it's part of a tire purchase and install or just a TPM repair.  That's just crazy.



VW (at least mine) has simplified the whole thing. Instead of fancy sensors it uses the abs and traction control monitors to check the diameter of the wheel, if something changes the light goes on. Check the tires and if everything is ok, just hit the reset button.


----------



## dlague (Nov 4, 2016)

yeggous said:


> Did you guys forget the whole Firestone tires / Ford Exploder ordeal? Many, many people died as a result. Your disregard for safety is concerning. Feel free to risk your own lives, but I'll be pissed when you kill my family after your under inflated tires explode and you lose control of your vehicle.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using AlpineZone mobile app


Maybe we need to bubble wrap all the vehicles.  I get safety but if 100% of the vehicles had all the same safety features but they don't in Colorado there are no inspection s even.  You can drive a complete shit box.

Sent from my SM-G930P using AlpineZone mobile app


----------



## cdskier (Nov 4, 2016)

JDMRoma said:


> When a tire is off by 10 PSI and it's not going off warning you ..... that's the problem. I've observed this over the years on Chevy,Kia and Toyota.
> 
> They're for people who don't know enough to check their tires.
> 
> Sorry don't need them for $200 extra



So how often do you check your tires? Once a day? Once a week? Once a month? The likelihood of someone catching a problem on their own is pretty slim short of an actual complete flat.

My truck shows me the actual PSI of each tire...so even without the warning light coming on I can see if one tire suddenly starts to drop a few PSI to signify a potential issue. Even for cars that don't show the exact PSI, a warning light coming on when it is 10 PSI below the recommended level is still better than not having it at all.


----------



## deadheadskier (Nov 4, 2016)

SkiFanE said:


> I haven't read replies - but I'm a Mazda CX-5 owner.  Bought first year they were out. Absolutely love it. My hesitation with buying it was that it had shortest warranty of all. But the split seat arrangement won us over and overall driving.  It has 90k miles now and has never been to shop but for oil change and brakes. First new car I've ever had never needing a warranty repair. My daughter got in accident over summer - boohoo - but $6k front end fix and I can't even tell driving it.  Ours has small engine so it does drive like a dog. Going from a BMW to this almost killed me once trying to pop quickly into high speed lane - oops lol. But they now make a 6cyl which I would get. But it has manual override so can use that if want to be a quicker dog lol.
> 
> Only bad thing in snow is the front wheel wells tend to clog with snow.  After a few hours of driving in snow and need to clear them out.
> 
> ...


Not a V6, but a 2.5L 4 cylinder vs your 2.0L.  

Mazda has abandoned V6 engines all together.  Even the new CX9 has a turbocharged 4

Sent from my XT1565 using AlpineZone mobile app


----------



## cdskier (Nov 4, 2016)

Smellytele said:


> We have a 2009 Traverse and while it has had some issues - Timing belt replaced under warranty and a recall on the steering - it now has 170000 on it. It goes (and stops) well in the snow, fits all our gear(skis included) inside and has 3 rows of seats which is nice with 3 kids. The audio system has been the biggest pain in the ass. Water leaks into the wiring harness in the doors and shorts out individual speaker channels on the amp. I only half 3 out of 8 speakers left working. Well a 4th works sometimes.



Tempted to say that might be the same year of the one my dad had. He also had the timing belt replaced under warranty and they told him it would probably need to be replaced again after it was out of warranty. He had issues with something in the steering system that Chevy kept telling him there was nothing wrong with and then suddenly after it was out of warranty they said "Yea, you have a problem and it needs to be fixed out of your own pocket" (I think the recall on the steering was announced after he had already sold it). Then the struts had issues (again right after the warranty expired). Before replacing the struts is when he decided to dump it and went with the Pilot which he's been happy with.


----------



## Jully (Nov 4, 2016)

dlague said:


> Maybe we need to bubble wrap all the vehicles.  I get safety but if 100% of the vehicles had all the same safety features but they don't in Colorado there are no inspection s even.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G930P using AlpineZone mobile app



When you require tire sensors you do have all vehicles having the same safety feature though. Still not necessarily a fan of it, but I at least see why. I thought the exploder was caused by dealers and/or owners purposefully lowering the tire pressure anyways?


----------



## dlague (Nov 4, 2016)

SkiFanE said:


> ours have too any false negatives. In both cars they always seem to be on at some time. The day after getting brand new tires on one car it went on. So I wouldn't rely on them at all.


Same happened to me.  Took it back to the tire dealer and their solution was to charge me almost $100 for a new sensor.  I left and about a week later seemed fine.  Like I said earlier it would always get out of sync at higher speeds.  Thing was always on.

Sent from my SM-G930P using AlpineZone mobile app


----------



## Jully (Nov 4, 2016)

cdskier said:


> So how often do you check your tires? Once a day? Once a week? Once a month? The likelihood of someone catching a problem on their own is pretty slim short of an actual complete flat.
> 
> My truck shows me the actual PSI of each tire...so even without the warning light coming on I can see if one tire suddenly starts to drop a few PSI to signify a potential issue. Even for cars that don't show the exact PSI, a warning light coming on when it is 10 PSI below the recommended level is still better than not having it at all.



Even with monitors (though mine don't give me actual psi) I still check my tires once a week. At a minimum it'll substantially help with gas mileage.


----------



## cdskier (Nov 4, 2016)

Jully said:


> Even with monitors (though mine don't give me actual psi) I still check my tires once a week. At a minimum it'll substantially help with gas mileage.



Do you think the average person does that (with or without sensors) though? It wouldn't surprise me if say 90-95% of people on the road never check so I much prefer those people having sensors than not having them. I personally check mine every month or so to make sure the sensors are still reporting accurately but I'm sure I'm in the minority.


----------



## dlague (Nov 4, 2016)

cdskier said:


> Do you think the average person does that (with or without sensors) though? It wouldn't surprise me if say 90-95% of people on the road never check so I much prefer those people having sensors than not having them. I personally check mine every month or so to make sure the sensors are still reporting accurately but I'm sure I'm in the minority.


Thing is there are a  boat load of cars with out them.  I had sensors and still did a visual because it is not a perfect time system.  I just a new to me car with out them.  I think the more they put in vehicles the more they cost and the more things that can go wrong.

I think new vehicles have gotten ridiculously expensive.  Even the used vehicle market is high IMO.

Sent from my SM-G930P using AlpineZone mobile app


----------



## Smellytele (Nov 4, 2016)

dlague said:


> I think the more they put in vehicles the more they cost and the more things that can go wrong.
> 
> I think new vehicles have gotten ridiculously expensive.  Even the used vehicle market is high IMO.



This! I just got my first vehicle without manual roll down windows. Guess what? I had to replace the switches because they died or worked intermittently. I used to buy vehicles without air conditioning or power mirrors also. Now it is impossible to find vehicles without these features. Can't even call them options because they come standard. These standard features are the reason trucks went from 20k to 40k.


----------



## Scruffy (Nov 4, 2016)

yeggous said:


> Did you guys forget the whole Firestone tires / Ford Exploder ordeal? Many, many people died as a result. Your disregard for safety is concerning. Feel free to risk your own lives, but I'll be pissed when you kill my family after your under inflated tires explode and you lose control of your vehicle.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using AlpineZone mobile app



Of course remember, and that's a weak argument for mandated TPMs. That incident had more to do with two faulty designs: that year explorer was so shittily designed from a stability standpoint, it was criminal; coupled with Firestones crappy tires, and you had a perfect storm. 

 I'm not against technological advancements, I've spent 35 years building very sophisticated super computers and devices, that, without exaggeration, are running the world. And I have TPMs in my cars and I check them as a secondary check--I also visually, and manually with a tire gauge, inspect my tires all the time. I visually glance at my tires every day I use the car, which is every day. I quick glance as your approaching and getting in the car-that's what you did before TPMs, that's what people should do regardless of the sensors. People need to take responsibility for their own, their families, and their fellow drivers safety. It starts with properly maintaining your vehicle, and driving in a sane and safe manor, and properly fastening down items your carrying on your roof,...etc...   

Fathers use to teach their daughters, when teaching them to drive, to check the tires, and even how to change a flat. Come on, it not that hard to be involved, and take responsibility for the speeding bullet your controlling. 

I just don't feel it's necessary to federally mandate these things, sorry I want the option to mount my tires without them.


----------



## Jully (Nov 4, 2016)

cdskier said:


> Do you think the average person does that (with or without sensors) though? It wouldn't surprise me if say 90-95% of people on the road never check so I much prefer those people having sensors than not having them. I personally check mine every month or so to make sure the sensors are still reporting accurately but I'm sure I'm in the minority.



That's fair... from that standpoint I can see that being a useful thing.



dlague said:


> Thing is there are a  boat load of cars with out them.  I had sensors and still did a visual because it is not a perfect time system.  I just a new to me car with out them.  I think the more they put in vehicles the more they cost and the more things that can go wrong.
> 
> I think new vehicles have gotten ridiculously expensive.  Even the used vehicle market is high IMO.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G930P using AlpineZone mobile app



Vehicles do cost a lot more these days. The used vehicle market being high is not totally connected to the price of the new car. More things that can go wrong though... absolutely. I want the base base base model for any car I buy, but I want it without the fancy gadgets that are 'luxury.' Any safety feature I'm okaying paying for. What I hate is that vehicle trims are bundled with a lot of crap that I don't want. To get the safety features I'd want I would have to also get a moon roof, heated seats, golden leather trimmed steering wheel, a $3000 audio system, and on board wifi (exaggerated but still).

I'm happy to pay for safety related things, but coupling them with non-safety items pisses me off. I'd rather have the gov regulate the safety features so dealers don't make me buy everything else to get the features. If this ridiculous bundling was done 25 years ago, you would have to get the luxury trim just to get seatbelts, airbags, and antilock brakes!


----------



## Scruffy (Nov 4, 2016)

wa-loaf said:


> VW (at least mine) has simplified the whole thing. Instead of fancy sensors it uses the abs and traction control monitors to check the diameter of the wheel, if something changes the light goes on. Check the tires and if everything is ok, just hit the reset button.



That's smart. I'll take that over those flaky TMPSes. Too bad the Alltrack doesn't have the ground clearance I need.


----------



## SkiFanE (Nov 4, 2016)

Jully said:


> That's fair... from that standpoint I can see that being a useful thing.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I wish they'd keep things simple. I'd rather control things with a manual lever than an electronic button. Can always use duct tape to fix a broken dial/lever but if it's electronic- you're SOL. We have bought Bosch d/w and washers - 5-6 between two homes in 15 years, base models. Base models on both were solid and had simple dials, 2 wash stages. Next time we had to buy the base models had electronics and more "brain". The old dishwasher NEVER had problems - we learned quciky that the "auto sensor" cycle sucked, have to do "normal" - and since it defaults to "auto" every freaking time I have to reenter normal AND push "sanitize" because that only defaults with auto wash.  So a 1 button push (on) has now turned to 4. So my QA / testing experience says that's 3 additionall places to fail. And they no longer have a stainless bottom, is gray plastic. So we got electronic crap that I'm sure will fail eventually (our first Bosch dw caught fire by of a faulty chip from China,  Bosch replaced panel for free ...) instead of stainless bottom.  Our washing machine went form normal/gentle with a manual RPM dial to 8-10 different cycles with set RPMs that allow a little adjustment. Have had this machine a few years now and have to keep chart handy for how the different cycles work. It's freaking maddening!


----------



## SIKSKIER (Nov 4, 2016)

Just got rid of my GMC Envoy Denali.TPs seemed to be a constant issue.I seemed to have one not working a lot.LI tried many times to recalibrate them and always had an issue with the same one.Last time I bought tires at Town Fair they fixed mine and then told me I couldn't get it inspected without all working.I saw a different view from another post.Anybody know what the deal is in NH?


----------



## Bene288 (Nov 4, 2016)

I can't say enough about my Tundra's snow performance, best vehicle I've ever had in the snow. Maybe a newer Tacoma with a cap is just as capable. I haven't driven a newer one in the snow yet. Pretty expensive for a small truck though. 

Sent from my Classic using Tapatalk


----------



## SIKSKIER (Nov 4, 2016)

Just found my answer.No in NH but Vt and RI do need working tps to pass inspection.4 of the 18 states listed on this page require that also.http://www.tirerack.com/wheels/tech/techpage.jsp?techid=214


----------



## BenedictGomez (Nov 4, 2016)

cdskier said:


> Need? No. *I could do it myself...but why waste my time? What takes him a few minutes with an impact wrench while my truck is up on the lift would take me a lot longer *jacking each wheel up individually and changing each tire by hand. I don't need to "prove" something to anyone by swapping my own tires.



Your mechanic changes your tires for free?

Granted I own a real jack, not one of those Fisher-Price things that comes with cars, but it probably takes me 25 minutes tops (if that).  It's really not an ordeal.



Scruffy said:


> *Don't get me started on those TPM sensors. It's another nanny state/grease the pockets of the tire mfgs. ruling.
> Stupid Feds making them required is insane. *



Give enough $$$$ to a politician, and there's not much you cannot "accomplish".



JDMRoma said:


> Yes *you can buy them without the TPSM *
> I honestly hate them and won't buy until they are required in the state inspection
> 
> *I'll gladly look at the little warning light all winter.
> ...



Interesting, I didnt realize they were allowed to mount them without the sensors, but if this is an option I'll go this route for sure.  Saving $400 is a no-brainer over something as mindbogglingly simplistic as occasionally checking your tire pressure.


----------



## BenedictGomez (Nov 4, 2016)

So I think I'm most likely right about it being illegal:  



> NHTSA's interpretation of *the Motor Vehicle Safety Act prohibits service providers from installing aftermarket tires and wheels on your vehicle without working TPMS sensors.*



But it seems tire sellers can get around it by offering this option at point of sale.





> Mount and balance the tires on the wheels without TPMS sensors.* I will have my service provider transfer my existing TPMS sensors or install new TPMS sensors* obtained locally.



Sort of a "wink, wink, nudge, nudge" kind of a thing it I'm guessing.


----------



## cdskier (Nov 4, 2016)

BenedictGomez said:


> Your mechanic changes your tires for free?



I think it was $20 last year he charged me to changeover to the winter wheels/tires. My time is more valuable than that, so to me it is absolutely worth it to just let him do it while he has it for regular service. In the spring I needed new all-season tires, so just paid for the tires and mounting on the summer wheels. In a sense you could say that time it was free to change the tires since there was no additional cost specifically for that.


----------



## JDMRoma (Nov 4, 2016)

BenedictGomez said:


> So I think I'm most likely right about it being illegal:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Interesting .....

If they worked better and I do like the idea about reporting PSI to the driver. But I've yet to see that on all, they need to be standardized. 
 Funny thing is when I mounted the non TPSM rims on the car it took 15 miles for it to figure out the sensors weren't there. And it resets when I park near the original tires. 
The dealer mentioned my warning light was on last winter at inspection and I said yup that's correct. Winter tires. No sensor and no issues from them. 




Sent from my iPhone using AlpineZone


----------



## JDMRoma (Nov 4, 2016)

cdskier said:


> I think it was $20 last year he charged me to changeover to the winter wheels/tires. My time is more valuable than that, so to me it is absolutely worth it to just let him do it while he has it for regular service. In the spring I needed new all-season tires, so just paid for the tires and mounting on the summer wheels. In a sense you could say that time it was free to change the tires since there was no additional cost specifically for that.



I quoted tires alone locally and it would have been $700 plus $75 to swap over twice a year.  So to buy new rims and tires was $900 from tire rack. They had way better prices on the tires and having the convenience of doing when I wanted. 


Sent from my iPhone using AlpineZone


----------



## xwhaler (Nov 4, 2016)

I just bought snow tires for my wife's Kia Sorento. I looked into a 2nd set of wheels but couldn't locate any for this size that made the math work.
I found some but the price of the wheels would have taken a long time to pay off relative to swapping out onto the factory alloys 2x/yr.
So I will just have my friend who owns a garage take care of it for me in November and April every yr.


----------



## JDMRoma (Nov 4, 2016)

xwhaler said:


> I just bought snow tires for my wife's Kia Sorento. I looked into a 2nd set of wheels but couldn't locate any for this size that made the math work.
> I found some but the price of the wheels would have taken a long time to pay off relative to swapping out onto the factory alloys 2x/yr.
> So I will just have my friend who owns a garage take care of it for me in November and April every yr.



Good friend to have 

I'm into the rims for 400, at $150 a year change over I should be fine. 
Would rather have not spent the extra but......


Sent from my iPhone using AlpineZone


----------



## cdskier (Nov 4, 2016)

JDMRoma said:


> I quoted tires alone locally and it would have been $700 plus $75 to swap over twice a year.  So to buy new rims and tires was $900 from tire rack. They had way better prices on the tires and having the convenience of doing when I wanted.



My most recent All-Season tire purchase last spring would have been $133/tire plus $27/tire shipping from Tire Rack (and then $25-30/tire for mounting/balancing from anywhere I looked). My normal mechanic charged me $169/tire total including mounting and balancing. I already have two sets of wheels. I did buy my winter wheels previously from Tire Rack as no one locally seems to even have a good selection of wheels to choose from. If you're buying wheels and tires together, then Tire Rack is also great and seems hard to beat. Tires alone though they just come out higher than what I can get locally for the exact same tires.


----------



## prsboogie (Nov 4, 2016)

Hawkshot99 said:


> I bought the truck used at 40k. The tires were bald so I told the dealer "if you want me to buy it you need to put new tires on it". The originals were most likely the Dunlop.  The dealer replaced them with West Lake tires. Some shifty Chinese tires. They are rock hard and have no traction. I've put 20k on it, and approaching the wear bars....
> The tires I bought are Hancook Dynapro ATM in a 265/70/17 so a inch taller. I looked at the Faulkens but they are a bit heavier.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G930F using AlpineZone mobile app



We have the Dynapro ATM on the 4Runner and love them. Granted haven't taken them in deep snow yet since we just put them on a year ago August,but in what they have been in has been good.

I miss my Taco, had a 10 and traded it for a Rav 4 which I like but liked the truck better.


----------



## JDMRoma (Nov 4, 2016)

cdskier said:


> So how often do you check your tires? Once a day? Once a week? Once a month? The likelihood of someone catching a problem on their own is pretty slim short of an actual complete flat.
> 
> My truck shows me the actual PSI of each tire...so even without the warning light coming on I can see if one tire suddenly starts to drop a few PSI to signify a potential issue. Even for cars that don't show the exact PSI, a warning light coming on when it is 10 PSI below the recommended level is still better than not having it at all.



CD

What kind of truck do you have ?
I'd say that I'd like having PSI info at a glance. 

I'm definitely not the norm, I do check frequently.  I guess that's what pisses me off when I see a tire off and it's not showing up on the warning lights. 




Sent from my iPhone using AlpineZone


----------



## Jully (Nov 4, 2016)

JDMRoma said:


> CD
> 
> What kind of truck do you have ?
> I'd say that I'd like having PSI info at a glance.
> ...



HAHA I've had the same issue. My sensors only seem to go off when its 10 PSI under... by that point I can practically feel the difference... its useless (as someone who cares a lot about tire pressure).


----------



## xwhaler (Nov 4, 2016)

Been buying tires online for many yrs now for a lot of different vehicles for personal usage and for some members of family. 
TireRack is the place to go for general research. Discount Tire Direct.com, TireBuyer.com, and TreadDepot.com are where you should end up buying to save $$$

Sent from my XT1254 using AlpineZone mobile app


----------



## cdskier (Nov 4, 2016)

JDMRoma said:


> CD
> 
> What kind of truck do you have ?
> I'd say that I'd like having PSI info at a glance.



07 Chevy Avalanche

The light itself goes on when pressure on any single tire goes under 25 or over 45. But in the info center on the dash one of the display options it the actual tire pressures of each tire.


----------



## JDMRoma (Nov 5, 2016)

cdskier said:


> 07 Chevy Avalanche
> 
> The light itself goes on when pressure on any single tire goes under 25 or over 45. But in the info center on the dash one of the display options it the actual tire pressures of each tire.



Thanks, wonder why more vehicles don't have it like that. 
Probably expensive....



Sent from my iPhone using AlpineZone


----------



## fbrissette (Nov 5, 2016)

cdskier said:


> I think it was $20 last year he charged me to changeover to the winter wheels/tires. My time is more valuable than that, so to me it is absolutely worth it to just let him do it while he has it for regular service. In the spring I needed new all-season tires, so just paid for the tires and mounting on the summer wheels. In a sense you could say that time it was free to change the tires since there was no additional cost specifically for that.


Time is also key for me.  I have a real jack and impact drill.  I do my car in 20 minutes top.   Quebec is mandatory winter tires so n is mayhem in garages come winter time.  Time to take an appointment, put tires in car, drive the 7-8 minutes to the garage, hey in, wait, pay, drive back and I've wasted an hour.


----------



## Smellytele (Nov 5, 2016)

JDMRoma said:


> Thanks, wonder why more vehicles don't have it like that.
> Probably expensive....
> 
> 
> ...




I have that on my Traverse


----------



## cdskier (Nov 5, 2016)

JDMRoma said:


> Thanks, wonder why more vehicles don't have it like that.
> Probably expensive....



It really shouldn't be...the computer has to know the real values in order to know when the light should go on anyway. So it is just a matter of actually displaying the value on the dash. The sensors themselves for my truck are only $33/tire from Tire Rack.


----------



## billski (Nov 5, 2016)

cdskier said:


> Nice to see someone being sensible. I really don't get the arguments against the TPM Sensors. Sure people made do for many years without them, but that can be said for thousands of innovations over the years. Doesn't mean we should keep going back to the way things were years ago. Unless someone is manually checking their tire pressures every day, then TPM sensors give you a HUGE heads up on any potential problems earlier than you would notice on your own without them.



For me it's a) an economic and b) an already done task I do quite competently.   I had TPMS on my last car for 10 years.  It would go off twice a year, once in the spring, once in the fall as the tires adjusted to new ambient temperatures.  Before that, I drove cars without TPMS for 32 years without them.  I never killed anyone.   Why?  Because I, unlike the ordinary American, walk around my car every day.  Yes, you read that right.  I'm always looking for something awry, and it doesn't have to be a tire.  I've stared at my tires long enough that I can tell pretty much by looking at them if they are down or not.  If anything looks odd, the pressure gauge, carried in my car is called upon.   If not, I'm checking tires with the gauge at least once per month.  I install, change out and inspect he tires at least twice a year.  I check tread depth at least once a month.  I keep a record in a spreadsheet of the tread depth and replace them well before they hit the minimum.  Where's the innovation for treadwear, which can be far more serious than air pressure?

There is no need to check tire pressure every day.  That is plain paranoia.  

I'll be damned if I am going to pay twice a year to have the tires "reinitialized".  At least with the Audi, you can do it yourself right from the dash.  Happy to let the idiot light glow.


----------



## KD7000 (Nov 6, 2016)

wa-loaf said:


> I'll be over after the soccer game Saturday ...


Totally missed this earlier, and then we had to leave right after soccer.  But I haven't done my changeover yet; in fact I'm still working on getting a winter setup for my wife's car.

I usually wait until around the weekend before Thanksgiving, unless it has gotten unreasonably cold.  The summer tires on my car are definitely not good on these 28* mornings.  So maybe next weekend, depending on the forecast. But you are welcome to come over any time if you want to play with tools.


----------



## Harvey (Nov 6, 2016)

gmcunni said:


> looking to replace aging 4 door sedan with a used small/mid-sized SUV with good snow performance.
> 
> Yes, i know, it is all about the tires! That said, anyone have recommendations on a good small SUV?  have had a Honda CRV and would happily pick another.  considering a Forester too.  No experience with Mazda (cx5) or Toyota (Rav4), any comments?  Other choices?
> 
> prefer the hatchback style of SUV rather over an AWD sedan.



What year CRV did you have?  I am on my third and the new AWD system in the 2012 was a big step up.


----------



## bheemsoth (Nov 6, 2016)

xwhaler said:


> Been buying tires online for many yrs now for a lot of different vehicles for personal usage and for some members of family.
> TireRack is the place to go for general research. Discount Tire Direct.com, TireBuyer.com, and TreadDepot.com are where you should end up buying to save $$$
> 
> Sent from my XT1254 using AlpineZone mobile app



Agreed. If you live anywhere near Windsor, CT, you can pick up TireRack deliveries for free at their warehouse near Bradley. I've been purchasing all my tires through them for a couple of years now. TireRack also has a network of independent installers, including a guy down the street from me that charges great rates for mounting/balancing.


----------



## bdfreetuna (Nov 6, 2016)

Tire pressure monitors are a joke. I bump my tires up to optimal firmness and top them off often. Every car I've had with TPMs this has failed to get the damn tire dashboard light to turn off. Whenever I go to top off my tires I am never off more than a few PSI.

Also, Subaru Forester or even a newer Outback wagon as they have lots of cargo space.


----------



## thetrailboss (Nov 6, 2016)

Harvey said:


> What year CRV did you have?  I am on my third and the new AWD system in the 2012 was a big step up.



Great to hear.  Thinking I want a new CRV to replace my Civic.


----------



## gmcunni (Nov 6, 2016)

Harvey said:


> What year CRV did you have?  I am on my third and the new AWD system in the 2012 was a big step up.



Ours was an 08 I think.  We went from a pilot to crv and I felt like the crv was better in the snow.


----------



## BenedictGomez (Nov 7, 2016)

Jully said:


> HAHA I've had the same issue. My sensors only seem to go off when its 10 PSI under... by that point I can practically feel the difference... its useless (as someone who cares a lot about tire pressure).



This is my first vehicle with TPMS, but I've been checking the tires each day on the dash readout, and they seem to bounce between 34 and 36 each day, which doesn't inspire  confidence in me in terms of accuracy.  Unless the air temps can make them vary each day by a pound or two.



fbrissette said:


> *Quebec is mandatory winter tires *so n is mayhem in garages come winter time.



Wow, I've never heard of such a thing.   Do police actually walk around checking tires and write tickets?



billski said:


> *Where's the innovation for treadwear, which can be far more serious than air pressure?
> *
> There is no need to check tire pressure every day.  That is plain paranoia.



Another great point, and more evidence that this whole TPMS thing is a money-making, incestuous government/lobbyist created scam.  

There's no gadget or government mandate to "monitor" tread wear (which could easily be done), even though bald or balding tires are responsible for EXPONENTIALLY more accidents than underinflated tires.


----------



## Smellytele (Nov 7, 2016)

This is my first vehicle with TPMS, but I've been checking the tires each day on the dash readout, and they seem to bounce between 34 and 36 each day, which doesn't inspire  confidence in me in terms of accuracy.  Unless the air temps can make them vary each day by a pound or two.

*Think deflategate!*


Another great point, and more evidence that this whole TPMS thing is a money-making, incestuous government/lobbyist created scam.  

There's no gadget or government mandate to "monitor" tread wear (which could easily be done), even though bald or balding tires are responsible for EXPONENTIALLY more accidents than underinflated tires.

*They check my tread wear once a year when I have my vehicle inspected.*


----------



## yeggous (Nov 7, 2016)

BenedictGomez said:


> This is my first vehicle with TPMS, but I've been checking the tires each day on the dash readout, and they seem to bounce between 34 and 36 each day, which doesn't inspire  confidence in me in terms of accuracy.  Unless the air temps can make them vary each day by a pound or two.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I am blown away by the level of government nanny state paranoia associated with basic safety standards. You can put the tinfoil hats away. The government is not out to get you.


----------



## Tin (Nov 7, 2016)

How to make any vehicle ready for winter!


----------



## Jully (Nov 7, 2016)

Tin said:


> How to make any vehicle ready for winter!



A+


----------



## dlague (Nov 7, 2016)

Smellytele said:


> This is my first vehicle with TPMS, but I've been checking the tires each day on the dash readout, and they seem to bounce between 34 and 36 each day, which doesn't inspire  confidence in me in terms of accuracy.  Unless the air temps can make them vary each day by a pound or two.
> 
> *Think deflategate!*
> 
> ...



My sensors would signal low air on days where the temps dropped overnight and then once it warmed up the indicator would go off.  Just driving down the road often would heat up the air enough to change the pressure enough to have the indicator turn off.  That always bugged me but I go used to it.

Still always did visual inspections.


----------



## Edd (Nov 7, 2016)

yeggous said:


> I am blown away by the level of government nanny state paranoia associated with basic safety standards. You can put the tinfoil hats away. The government is not out to get you.



100% agree. When it comes to government paranoia, one of my faves is people refusing to improve their lives with an EZ pass because "that's a way to track you".


----------



## cdskier (Nov 7, 2016)

dlague said:


> My sensors would signal low air on days where the temps dropped overnight and then once it warmed up the indicator would go off.  Just driving down the road often would heat up the air enough to change the pressure enough to have the indicator turn off.  That always bugged me but I go used to it.



I'm a bit intrigued by this scenario. What's the drop in pressure that your sensors need to see in order to trigger the warning light? To use my truck as an example, 35 psi is the recommended pressure. The warning light doesn't go on until it drops to 25. If you estimate a roughly 1 psi drop per every 10 degree temperature drop, then if the tires are close to the recommended pressure one day, wouldn't you need a roughly 100 degree temperature drop overnight to get the warning light to go on?  Or do some cars have a much narrower threshold for the warning?

Also, maybe everyone else here has better eyesight than I do, but I can't see the difference between a tire inflated to 30 psi and one inflated to 35 psi. Every tire article I ever read that talked about air pressure always said visual checks are unreliable (with the exception of a massively under-inflated tire or flat).


----------



## dlague (Nov 7, 2016)

cdskier said:


> I'm a bit intrigued by this scenario. What's the drop in pressure that your sensors need to see in order to trigger the warning light? To use my truck as an example, 35 psi is the recommended pressure. The warning light doesn't go on until it drops to 25. If you estimate a roughly 1 psi drop per every 10 degree temperature drop, then if the tires are close to the recommended pressure one day, wouldn't you need a roughly 100 degree temperature drop overnight to get the warning light to go on?  Or do some cars have a much narrower threshold for the warning?
> 
> Also, maybe everyone else here has better eyesight than I do, but I can't see the difference between a tire inflated to 30 psi and one inflated to 35 psi. Every tire article I ever read that talked about air pressure always said visual checks are unreliable (with the exception of a massively under-inflated tire or flat).



I ended up finding that one of my tires was on the border line and once I had inflated it a bit that was no longer happening.  It did get out of sync a lot generally at higher speeds - when that happens he indicator would flash.  Once it was back in sync it would stay on for a bit then go off.  That too was annoying but got used to it.

BTW we are going to get a second new to us vehicle and this thread has been interesting even though it was hijacked.  We are considering, Subaru Forester, Ford Edge, CRX and others in that size range.


----------



## MEtoVTSkier (Nov 7, 2016)

Edd said:


> 100% agree. When it comes to government paranoia, one of my faves is people refusing to improve their lives with an EZ pass because "that's a way to track you".



Yet they won't stop staring at their smartphone...


----------



## cdskier (Nov 7, 2016)

dlague said:


> I ended up finding that one of my tires was on the border line and once I had inflated it a bit that was no longer happening.  It did get out of sync a lot generally at higher speeds - when that happens he indicator would flash.  Once it was back in sync it would stay on for a bit then go off.  That too was annoying but got used to it.



That pretty much was what I was hoping you'd say  and shows the system was working as intended and helped you catch a tire that was borderline before you noticed it the old fashioned way. With a properly implemented TPMS (by that I mean where the dash shows you actual PSI values), you can catch situations like that before they even become borderline. It is much faster for me to hit a button on my dash and see the PSI values than to go around and measure each tire manually (I do keep a gauge in my glove box though). I also like seeing the values while driving as it is interesting to see the impact of heat on the pressures as the tires warm up while moving.

Never personally seen the sync issue in any of the vehicles myself or family have had with TPMS though. That one would bother me if it happened regularly.


----------



## Dickc (Nov 7, 2016)

For most tires, the pressure changes by about one pound for every ten degrees F the temp changes.  A summer day with them set at 32 PSI will have them drop by three pounds from that 80 degree summer day to a day like today at 50 degrees.  My wife's Honda will flash the low pressure light if any tire hits 29 pounds.  I have not had my 2014 Chevy pickup show a low pressure warning yet, but it has the screen where you can see the actual pound readout, and I keep them a pound or two over. I find it correlates with a tire pressure gauge quite well.  In summer driving on the highway, they will go from 32 PSI cold to 34-35PSI.  In winter they go up a little less with the colder pavement, but will go up.

The reason these things are on most vehicles now is an under-inflated tire will heat up A LOT.  Anyone remember the Ford Explorers that were blowing tires and rolling over? (Firestone tires.)  Those tires SHOULD have been at 32 or so PSI, but Ford wanted a softer ride so they placarded them for something like 28.  Go down a few PSI, and they would blow out on a hot summer day and the results were deadly.


----------



## Harvey (Nov 7, 2016)

thetrailboss said:


> Great to hear.  Thinking I want a new CRV to replace my Civic.



This may be something that benefits me but not all. 

The way I understand it, they set it up so that under 5 mph all wheels are engaged instead of waiting for slip to bring on the rears. This REALLY helps me get up our steep drive in the mountains, which one of the primary reasons I have AWD.  You have to accept the fact that if you are moving really slow, crank the steering hard to one side while steeping on it, you get a bit of a clunk.

At first I was like WTF is going on with my brand new car, but once I figured it out it was all good.


----------



## Scruffy (Nov 7, 2016)

yeggous said:


> I am blown away by the level of government nanny state paranoia associated with basic safety standards. You can put the tinfoil hats away. The government is not out to get you.



Not worried about the government, they can't even put up a competent candidate up for President. I'm concerned with business raping me for no good reason, while our incompetent and greedy government turns a blind eye and holds their hand out. Of all the safety regulations TPMS is low fruit, sorry, I realize you're developing the next smart car, great for you, I hope you succeed; but really I think I can manage the air in my tires just fine- and until the whole Ford explorer debacle you mentioned a while back, no one even batted an eye about low air pressure being safety issue. Tires weren't just blow up allover the place and cars flipping over because of it. I'd rather the business/Govment regulate how close a vehicle follows the car in front of it, and enforce that by some monitoring system-tailgating, much more dangerous than low tire pressure.


----------



## yeggous (Nov 7, 2016)

Scruffy said:


> Not worried about the government, they can't even put up a competent candidate up for President. I'm concerned with business raping me for no good reason, while our incompetent and greedy government turns a blind eye and holds their hand out. Of all the safety regulations TPMS is low fruit, sorry, I realize you're developing the next smart car, great for you, I hope you succeed; but really I think I can manage the air in my tires just fine- and until the whole Ford explorer debacle you mentioned a while back, no one even batted an eye about low air pressure being safety issue. Tires weren't just blow up allover the place and cars flipping over because of it. I'd rather the business/Govment regulate how close a vehicle follows the car in front of it, and enforce that by some monitoring system-tailgating, much more dangerous than low tire pressure.



Low fruit is a good way to put it. Very little expense was required to prevent a big problem. The Ford / Firestone debacle killed a couple hundred people. That was a strong argument in favor of it being necessary.

Good news on the tailgating issue. Automatic braking is already being mandated as standard equipment in the immediate future. If somebody gets closer than is safe, their car will not so gently remind them by hitting the brakes. This is already an option on just about every car for sale today.


Sent from my iPhone using AlpineZone mobile app


----------



## BenedictGomez (Nov 8, 2016)

yeggous said:


> *I am blown away by the level of government nanny state paranoia associated with basic safety standards. You can put the tinfoil hats away.* The government is not out to get you.



It's hardy "paranoia", it's years of observational life experiences regarding government cash-grabs, combined with a dose of logic.   

There is *not* a plethora of road deaths each year due to under/over-inflated tires.  That is a canard (and not even a very good one).
You know what *does* kill a lot of people in vehicular accidents each year?   Bald tires; as Billski correctly noted.

Yet we dont have a Federally mandated rule on bald tire monitoring like we do for tire pressure.  Hell, a "Federal regulation" to keep headlights clean would save more lives! lol

And has already been stated here by others, the Firestone / Ford debacle was a strawman argument that allowed them to pass this nonsense on every American in the name of "safety".   That was one very unique problem, inherent with one size of tire, from literally one tire manufacturer, and at one plant.   Yet they made it seem like this was a "common" problem (it wasn't) that needed an immediate (and expensive) solution imposed on every American.


----------



## Cornhead (Nov 8, 2016)

The conversation probably went something like this, "How can we get lazy Americans to keep the proper amount of air in their tires and keep them from wasting millions of gallons of gas every year?" 

Sent from my XT1064 using AlpineZone mobile app


----------



## skinavy (Nov 8, 2016)

IIRC it began with the ca.Y2K Ford Explorer rollovers.  As usual, a statistically small number of spectacular/headline-grabbing incidents tend to inform large-scale policy...  

Ford had dropped the recommended pressure from 32psi to 28psi in the Explorer to make the ride cushier to appeal to families while keeping the Ranger chassis & suspension, despite the Explorer being much heavier and with a higher center of gravity.  Toss in the usual operator neglect, and folks were now riding around with <20psi in top-heavy, overloaded vehicles, trying to make overly-fast turns.  It caused Ford to divorce Firestone after 90+ years, got me a GREAT deal on a new Explorer, and kickstarted the TPMS thing. From their view it covers their butts; from the gov't view it helps people be a little safer; from my view its another system to disable before it fails and ticks me off.

Not that keeping 32 would have necessarily prevented this, but it can't help to start with even lower pressure than originally specified.


----------



## dlague (Nov 8, 2016)

BenedictGomez said:


> It's hardy "paranoia", it's years of observational life experiences regarding government cash-grabs, combined with a dose of logic.
> 
> There is *not* a plethora of road deaths each year due to under/over-inflated tires.  That is a canard (and not even a very good one).
> You know what *does* kill a lot of people in vehicular accidents each year?   Bald tires; as Billski correctly noted.
> ...


I would like to know how many states have safety inspections?  Most states I have lived in do, but Colorado doesn't the shear number of vehicles on the road that have cracked windshield is nuts.  I also see a lot of beater cars with bald tires too.

BTW Colorado is more of a live free or die state than New Hampshire by a long shot.  NH is actually pretty uptight.

Sent from my SM-G930P using AlpineZone mobile app


----------



## Smellytele (Nov 8, 2016)

Edd said:


> 100% agree. When it comes to government paranoia, one of my faves is people refusing to improve their lives with an EZ pass because "that's a way to track you".



My issue with Ezpass when NH first got it was that the discount that I got from tokens was greater than the EZpass discount.


----------



## Smellytele (Nov 8, 2016)

dlague said:


> BTW Colorado is more of a live free or die state than New Hampshire by a long shot.  NH is actually pretty uptight.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G930P using AlpineZone mobile app



NH used to be a lot different. The influx of people moving from Mass has changed the demographics. We were once a red state and now are Blue. People moved here because of the way of life was different, Then when they got here they wanted sidewalks, trash pick up and more paved roads.


----------



## cdskier (Nov 8, 2016)

BenedictGomez said:


> You know what *does* kill a lot of people in vehicular accidents each year?   Bald tires; as Billski correctly noted.



Tire tread wear is something that happens slowly over an extended period of time. People should easily notice long before they are bald that they will need new tires soon. Anyone that gets regular service on their car should also be told by their mechanic that there's a potential need for new tires within the next x number of miles. If someone chooses to ignore that advice, then they are irresponsible and negligent.

Conversely tire pressure issues can happen much more quickly (i.e. due to a sudden leak). Also as mentioned by others temperature swings can drop pressures below recommended levels overnight if they were borderline. TPMS helps bring awareness to this at the very least. It is also far simpler to measure PSI in a tire via a sensor than it is to attempt to measure tread depth (via a sensor).


----------



## Smellytele (Nov 8, 2016)

cdskier said:


> It is also far simpler to measure PSI in a tire via a sensor than it is to attempt to measure tread depth.



My tires actually have % amounts on the tire it self. 80%, 60%, 40%... when it wears down they disappear. Good concept


----------



## dlague (Nov 8, 2016)

Smellytele said:


> NH used to be a lot different. The influx of people moving from Mass has changed the demographics. We were once a red state and now are Blue. People moved here because of the way of life was different, Then when they got here they wanted sidewalks, trash pick up and more paved roads.



They turned NH into MA at least south of Concord.  NH is also infested with State Troopers and local cops too.  Colorado you rarely see State Troopers and it is generally due to roadside emergencies.  Then again the speed limits on back roads are 65 and the highway is 75 and everyone seems to drive 80.  I digress!

Addressing another post, checking tire tread is cheap - a penny if you cannot determine that visually!  However, bald tires are not usually found on vehicles where the owner can outright buy 4 new tires without concern.  It is the folks who live on tight budgets or are on no budgets that drive the tires into the ground literally.  Probably also the ones that are insured minimally.  Also are the ones driving cars that are older and do not have TPMS either.


----------



## cdskier (Nov 8, 2016)

dlague said:


> Addressing another post, checking tire tread is cheap - a penny if you cannot determine that visually!  However, bald tires are not usually found on vehicles where the owner can outright buy 4 new tires without concern.  It is the folks who live on tight budgets or are on no budgets that drive the tires into the ground literally.  Probably also the ones that are insured minimally.  Also are the ones driving cars that are older and do not have TPMS either.



That's actually a very good point and no sensor would help address that as those people would ignore it anyway even if they had it as they'd have no other choice. I don't know how you solve that problem either. I'd love to simply say "well then they shouldn't drive if they can't afford it", but the fact is they very well may need to drive just to get to work to support their family. Tough situation.

At least with tire pressure there are still a few places around where you can get free air!


----------



## BenedictGomez (Nov 8, 2016)

skinavy said:


> From their view it covers their butts; from the gov't view it helps people be a little safer;* from my view its another system to disable before it fails and ticks me off.*



Sounds like a lot of people do this, especially regarding winter tires.



dlague said:


> * I would like to know how many states have safety inspections? * Most states I have lived in do, but Colorado doesn't the shear number of vehicles on the road that have cracked windshield is nuts.  I also see a lot of beater cars with bald tires too.



Not that many. 

  In New Jersey we used to have full inspection of the lights, brakes, mirrors, glass, tires, etc...., but they scraped all that and kept only 1 inspection item............... emissions, to combat global warming.  NOT KIDDING, and not something from The Onion.  Carbon emission was deemed more important than brakes.



dlague said:


> BTW Colorado is more of a live free or die state than New Hampshire by a long shot.  NH is actually pretty uptight.



In about 10 years, you can stick a fork in New Hampshire.


----------



## cdskier (Nov 8, 2016)

BenedictGomez said:


> In New Jersey we used to have full inspection of the lights, brakes, mirrors, glass, tires, etc...., but they scraped all that and kept only 1 inspection item............... emissions, to combat global warming.  NOT KIDDING, and not something from The Onion.  Carbon emission was deemed more important than brakes.
> .



Something we appear to agree on! This boggles my mind as well. And the emissions testing is questionable at best as for newer cars all they do is plug into the obd connector and make sure the computer thinks everything is ok and that there are no active codes. I will say it is nice to get through inspection in just a few minutes now that they no longer do the safety inspections...


----------



## yeggous (Nov 8, 2016)

BenedictGomez said:


> Sounds like a lot of people do this, especially regarding winter tires.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I think you are confused with what the emissions test checks. Don't let your predispositions blind you. The emissions test measures the amount of smog-causing constituents (SOx, NOx, particulates, etc), not carbon dioxide. If anything a failing car would be better for global warming as the smog reflects sunlight.


----------



## BenedictGomez (Nov 8, 2016)

yeggous said:


> I think you are confused with what the emissions test checks. Don't let your predispositions blind you. *The emissions test measures the amount of smog*



Whichever the dopey, faux environmental, "feelgood" reason, it was, if you're going to have vehicle inspection at all, it's moronic to scrap the inspection of brakes, tire tread, mirrors, operable headlights and blinkers, etc.... yet KEEP a mandated environmental inspection.


----------



## billski (Nov 9, 2016)

Who remembers retreads?   Back in the day, lots of people bought them, they cost about 60% IIRC of a new tire.  You'd see retreads all over the road.  There were blowouts all the time, and the detritus they left behind was incredibly hazardous.  While truckers used them the most, lots of civilian did too.

I would much rather have TPMS be standard at time of mounting unless the driver explicitly asked not to.  The liability is on the driver regardless, not on the tire shop.  That way the clueless get them, but the informed owners, willing to do their own inspections can opt out.

I would also argue that learning good driving skills is more important.  I really don't need a backup camera (now mandatory by law) IMO.  I walk behind the car first, and I also turn my head to the right and face all the way back when in reverse.  That and my peripheral vision has saved me a few times when a pedestrian, or worse yet, a speeding vehicle approached me unsafely when backing up.  I shudder when I see auto drivers backup using only their rear view mirrors like a trucker must.


----------



## billski (Nov 9, 2016)

yeggous said:


> I think you are confused with what the emissions test checks. Don't let your predispositions blind you. The emissions test measures the amount of smog-causing constituents (SOx, NOx, particulates, etc), not carbon dioxide. If anything a failing car would be better for global warming as the smog reflects sunlight.



And VW/Audi did a great job writing software to obfuscate the real emissions level.


----------



## billski (Nov 9, 2016)

BenedictGomez said:


> Whichever the dopey, faux environmental, "feelgood" reason, it was, if you're going to have vehicle inspection at all, it's moronic to scrap the inspection of brakes, tire tread, mirrors, operable headlights and blinkers, etc.... yet KEEP a mandated environmental inspection.



In the 80's in Mass. inspection was every 6 months.  The signs outside the shops said "sticker".  And that's what is was, a sticker.  Sometimes they'd beep your horn, sometimes they'd check your blinkers and sometimes they jacked up one tire to check a brake pad.  In the case of brakes, you'd always get the response, "you've got another couple thousand miles on those".   They'd write up the sticker even before they did the "inspection".  The hood?  This car has a hood?    Gotta love the bad old days..


----------



## Jully (Nov 9, 2016)

billski said:


> I really don't need a backup camera (now mandatory by law) IMO.



What? When did they become mandatory by law?


----------



## yeggous (Nov 9, 2016)

Jully said:


> What? When did they become mandatory by law?



In 2014. The law goes into effect in 2018 since vehicles have several year design cycles.


Sent from my iPhone using AlpineZone mobile app


----------



## dlague (Nov 9, 2016)

yeggous said:


> In 2014. The law goes into effect in 2018 since vehicles have several year design cycles.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using AlpineZone mobile app



Obviously, it will apply to all new vehicles.  Older vehicles will have to be grandfathered!


----------



## Jully (Nov 9, 2016)

yeggous said:


> In 2014. The law goes into effect in 2018 since vehicles have several year design cycles.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using AlpineZone mobile app



Dang. I had no idea!


----------



## prsboogie (Nov 9, 2016)

Back on topic just picked up General Altima Artics with steels for this season at TownFair for the Rav. Holding off till December or the first snow to put them on though. 


Sent from my iPhone using AlpineZone


----------



## SIKSKIER (Nov 9, 2016)

Jully said:


> What? When did they become mandatory by law?



I have one on my new truck but don't like it.I feel distracted looking at the screen instead of my mirrors.I seem to take a quick look and then go back to the mirrors.


----------



## Jully (Nov 9, 2016)

prsboogie said:


> Back on topic just picked up General Altima Artics with steels for this season at TownFair for the Rav. Holding off till December or the first snow to put them on though.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using AlpineZone



Deciding when to put the snow tires has gotten a lot tougher in the recent years. I'd really rather not be stuck with snows on during another 60 degree day in December. Don't want to wait until the last minute either though... if there's a 12" storm I'd rather not have to be stuck driving north with all seasons on.


----------



## yeggous (Nov 9, 2016)

SIKSKIER said:


> I have one on my new truck but don't like it.I feel distracted looking at the screen instead of my mirrors.I seem to take a quick look and then go back to the mirrors.



I love the camera in my truck. It makes parking much easier.


Sent from my iPhone using AlpineZone mobile app


----------



## Jully (Nov 9, 2016)

SIKSKIER said:


> I have one on my new truck but don't like it.I feel distracted looking at the screen instead of my mirrors.I seem to take a quick look and then go back to the mirrors.



I've never even gotten the chance to use one. I'm not sure how it would feel to me. Definitely weird, but it'd be really useful for parallel parking at a minimum.


----------



## Smellytele (Nov 9, 2016)

The newer cameras with the lines showing you where you will go if you continue on the path you are are much better than the one that is just a camera view like on my wife's traverse.


----------



## mbedle (Nov 9, 2016)

I just purchased a new truck after having an old dodge since 2002. It has a backup camera and I'm still divided on how usable or safe they are. For backing up at home, its the best thing since sliced bread. For moving the trailer, it also is pretty nice. In a parking lot, I find that I feel a lot safer turning around to see cars around me and don't really rely on the camera to much.


----------



## mbedle (Nov 9, 2016)

Jully said:


> I've never even gotten the chance to use one. I'm not sure how it would feel to me. Definitely weird, but it'd be really useful for parallel parking at a minimum.




Good point on the parallel parking, but I don't run into that to much.


----------



## cdskier (Nov 9, 2016)

yeggous said:


> I love the camera in my truck. It makes parking much easier.



I'll second that. The rear-view camera was one of my absolute "must-have options" 10 years ago when I bought my truck. Back then it was a pain as the only way to get it on my truck was to also get the built-in Nav system.


----------



## BenedictGomez (Nov 9, 2016)

Smellytele said:


> The* newer cameras with the lines showing you where you will go if you continue on the path you are are *much better than the one that is just a camera view like on my wife's traverse.



This is what I have.  It's my first experience with a back-up camera, and I question how safe it is. 

 I guess if they're mandating it it means they must have data showing it leads to > safety, but to me it seems awkward looking down at a screen, but mostly because I feel I lose some degrees of peripheral vision.  Also, honestly, I don't get the point frankly.  Is turning your head a safety impediment?   

The only thing I really like about it is for reversing into parking spots I can see precisely if my car is lined-up within the white lines.   That's pretty cool.


----------



## yeggous (Nov 9, 2016)

BenedictGomez said:


> This is what I have.  It's my first experience with a back-up camera, and I question how safe it is.
> 
> I guess if they're mandating it it means they must have data showing it leads to > safety, but to me it seems awkward looking down at a screen, but mostly because I feel I lose some degrees of peripheral vision.  Also, honestly, I don't get the point frankly.  Is turning your head a safety impediment?
> 
> The only thing I really like about it is for reversing into parking spots I can see precisely if my car is lined-up within the white lines.   That's pretty cool.



The motivation is that people keep on running over small children in their driveways. You could put a toddler behind my truck and there is no way I am going to see him without the camera. It doesn't matter if I physically turn around because my tailgate is not transparent.

The camera also makes it much easier to back up to a trailer hitch. I can do it solo with much greater ease.


----------



## BenedictGomez (Nov 9, 2016)

^ The kiddie thing makes sense.  Dogs and cats, etc... too.  This assumes people actually use them of course, which makes me wonder if new drivers tend to rely on them or if they are traditional "look back'ers".  I'm really not using mine, but that well might be simply because I didn't grow up with it.


----------



## prsboogie (Nov 9, 2016)

BenedictGomez said:


> ^ The kiddie thing makes sense.  Dogs and cats, etc... too.  This assumes people actually use them of course, which makes me wonder if new drivers tend to rely on them or if they are traditional "look back'ers".  I'm really not using mine, but that well might be simply because I didn't grow up with it.



My father in law used it on his Prius and side swiped a wall, he obviously learned a valuable lesson with cameras; you still have to use your mirrors and turn your head. I love being able to parallel into spots with the 4Runner I normally wouldn't think of getting into. 


Sent from my iPhone using AlpineZone


----------



## Smellytele (Nov 9, 2016)

In the winter the camera gets covered easily with road grim and snow


----------



## Scruffy (Nov 9, 2016)

yeggous said:


> Low fruit is a good way to put it. Very little expense was required to prevent a big problem. The Ford / Firestone debacle killed a couple hundred people. That was a strong argument in favor of it being necessary.
> 
> *Good news on the tailgating issue. Automatic braking is already being mandated as standard equipment in the immediate future. If somebody gets closer than is safe, their car will not so gently remind them by hitting the brakes. This is already an option on just about every car for sale today.*
> 
> ...



My understanding is that, currently, collision avoidance systems monitor for an imminent crash, and then apply the brakes. Not necessarily for following too close. For the tailgating issue, you'd need to use adaptive cruise control for the vehicle to brake and maintain a safe distance. True?

As to the backup camera: It's good start. To it's applicability of running over a child playing behind your vehicle while backing, you still need to watch what's in the camera's field of view and be responsible. Certainly, if forward crash avoidance systems can stop the car before you ram the car in front of you, or hit a wall, it should brake the vehicle before it runs over the child, or anything else for that matter; currently they don't do that.


----------



## 2Planker (Nov 9, 2016)

20 pages later....

  No Brainer - AUDI all the way.  New Q5 is excellent w/ true Quattro rather than the Q3's Haldex AWD.

 Car, SUV don't matter. If you need AWD then you should go w/ the company that pretty much invented it 40 years ago.
Best Interiors, Best Technology, best AWD....

  Also Consumer Reports Best Car Manufacturer for 2016 - http://www.newsday.com/classifieds/...2016-include-audi-subaru-and-lexus-1.11504841


----------



## Scruffy (Nov 9, 2016)

2Planker said:


> 20 pages later....
> 
> No Brainer - AUDI all the way.  New Q5 is excellent w/ true Quattro rather than the Q3's Haldex AWD.
> 
> ...



Right country, wrong company, wrong timeframe.


----------



## yeggous (Nov 9, 2016)

Scruffy said:


> My understanding is that, currently, collision avoidance systems monitor for an imminent crash, and then apply the brakes. Not necessarily for following too close. For the tailgating issue, you'd need to use adaptive cruise control for the vehicle to brake and maintain a safe distance. True?
> 
> As to the backup camera: It's good start. To it's applicability of running over a child playing behind your vehicle while backing, you still need to watch what's in the camera's field of view and be responsible. Certainly, if forward crash avoidance systems can stop the car before you ram the car in front of you, or hit a wall, it should brake the vehicle before it runs over the child, or anything else for that matter; currently they don't do that.



That all depends on the manufacturer. Some do brake for pedestrians. And some do work at highway speeds. Do your homework before you buy.


Sent from my iPhone using AlpineZone mobile app


----------



## 2Planker (Nov 10, 2016)

Scruffy said:


> Right country, wrong company, wrong timeframe.



Hmmmmm.....   OK invented by F Porsche in approx 1906, BUT first put in daily drivers by Audi in the late 70's

Right country, right company !!


----------



## SIKSKIER (Nov 10, 2016)

Smellytele said:


> In the winter the camera gets covered easily with road grim and snow


Which means your camara could too.


----------



## SIKSKIER (Nov 10, 2016)

Don't understand the turning around thing.I always use my mirrors.Mirrors are much more effective when backing into a parking spot cuz you see right down the side of yours and the other vehicle.Cant do that turning around.


----------



## Smellytele (Nov 10, 2016)

SIKSKIER said:


> Which means your camara could too.



What is a camara? Is that spanish?


----------



## 2Planker (Nov 10, 2016)

Except that teh camera does have the markings of where you are headed.

I'm old fashioned - Mirrors and turn around.  Wife does it pretty slick w/ the back up camera.


----------



## Edd (Nov 10, 2016)

My Forester is very tricky to me when it comes to judging distance in the front and back. It looks like your right on top of something even if you're 3 feet away. I've never gotten used to it. I'd love to try a backup camera.


----------



## SIKSKIER (Nov 10, 2016)

Smellytele said:


> What is a camara? Is that spanish?


According to Wikipedia camara is a social enterprise that sends refurbished computers and provides digital literacy training to schools and other educational institutions in Ethiopia.Learn something new everyday.


----------



## Smellytele (Nov 10, 2016)

SIKSKIER said:


> According to Wikipedia camara is a social enterprise that sends refurbished computers and provides digital literacy training to schools and other educational institutions in Ethiopia.Learn something new everyday.



Then I doubt it would get covered in snow in Ethiopia.


----------



## SIKSKIER (Nov 11, 2016)

Smellytele said:


> Then I doubt it would get covered in snow in Ethiopia.



Don't be so sure.Ras Dashen is higher than anything in the lower 48 of the US.


----------



## Smellytele (Nov 11, 2016)

Not many places to back up there!


----------



## BenedictGomez (Nov 14, 2016)

Well I'm done...

4 Winter tires + 4 steel wheels + 4 TPM sensors (said screw it and bought the dumb things @ $33/wheel) with mounting & balancing = actual cost of $953.


----------



## prsboogie (Nov 14, 2016)

BenedictGomez said:


> Well I'm done...
> 
> 4 Winter tires + 4 steel wheels + 4 TPM sensors (said screw it and bought the dumb things @ $33/wheel) with mounting & balancing = actual cost of $953.



Did the same for the RAV4 four snows and rims with the tpms for 799.00 


Sent from my iPhone using AlpineZone


----------



## gmcunni (Nov 14, 2016)

BenedictGomez said:


> Well I'm done...
> 
> 4 Winter tires + 4 steel wheels + 4 TPM sensors (said screw it and bought the dumb things @ $33/wheel) with mounting & balancing = actual cost of $953.





prsboogie said:


> Did the same for the RAV4 four snows and rims with the tpms for 799.00
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using AlpineZone



tirerack.com is quoting $917 for 4 tires, steele rims, and tmps (50/per) mounted and balanced.

BLIZZAK DM-V2 / 215/70R16

shipping and tax =$1100  

where you guys shopping?


----------



## prsboogie (Nov 14, 2016)

I got General Altimax Artics in 16s (downsized for better traction) which was quoted on Tirerack for somewhere around $820 and Town Fair beat the price


Sent from my iPhone using AlpineZone

And I didn't mention shipping costs to them when I told them the price


----------



## thetrailboss (Nov 14, 2016)

OK, so it looks like we are going to sell my Civic and get a new car by the end of the year.  

I've got it narrowed down to either another Outback or a CRV.  I like the Crosstrek, but it looks really small inside and Edmunds did not give it good reviews saying that the Hybrid version did not improve performance and that it lacks in power.  

I'm also open to buying a preowned Volvo...say a Cross Country.  I don't want to spend $40k on a new car right now.  

Thoughts?


----------



## BenedictGomez (Nov 14, 2016)

gmcunni said:


> tirerack.com is quoting $917 for 4 tires, steele rims, and tmps (50/per) mounted and balanced.
> 
> BLIZZAK DM-V2 / 215/70R16
> 
> ...



Tirerack.com

I'm saving ~$100 on shipping by picking them up at their warehouse.


----------



## BenedictGomez (Nov 14, 2016)

thetrailboss said:


> I like the Crosstrek, but it looks really small inside and Edmunds did not give it good reviews saying that the Hybrid version did not improve performance and that it lacks in power.



The woman loves her Crosstrek.  It is deceivingly large inside.  You look at it from the outside, and it looks very small, but it somehow "opens up" inside, and it is very good in the snow.  The hybrid version is dumb because it only gets about 2 miles more per gallon, which is certainly not worth the hybrid price spike, let alone decrease in performance, so I wouldn't even consider it.  That said, the normal version gets about 30mpg to begin with which is pretty good.


----------



## gmcunni (Nov 14, 2016)

BenedictGomez said:


> Tirerack.com
> 
> I'm saving ~$100 on shipping by picking them up at their warehouse.



that wasn't an option for me. said that due to something in my order they could not be picked up.  weird your sensors were $33 and mine were 50.


----------



## gmcunni (Nov 14, 2016)

thetrailboss said:


> OK, so it looks like we are going to sell my Civic and get a new car by the end of the year.
> 
> I've got it narrowed down to either another Outback or a CRV.  I like the Crosstrek, but it looks really small inside and Edmunds did not give it good reviews saying that the Hybrid version did not improve performance and that it lacks in power.
> 
> ...



we have 2015 outback, had 08-11 CRV.  both great cars.  the subi is a very comfortable car. easy rides to/from mountains.  never tried it in serious snow but performed well in the mild stuff we had last winter.  i recall the CRV doing great in some heavy snow.  solid and predictable handling.


----------



## Hawkshot99 (Nov 14, 2016)

I had a 98' Honda CRV 5spd. To this day it was the best vehicle I have driven in snow, and even better when I got snows.
I have since moved on to trucks, and have also owned a Honda Ridgeline that uses the same AWD system as the current CRV's. My mother has owned a 08 and currently a 14' CRV that I have driven in the snow.
I am not a fan of the modern Honda "smart AWD" or whatever they call it. I prefer to be able to turn the AWD on or off, not let computers decide when wheels are slipping. Current Honda AWD is FWD until late it senses the wheels slipping, then it kicks in the rear. I have found this to be unpredictable, and sometimes violent to react. In my Ridgeline I had the most experience, but have felt it as well in the newer CRV'S as well. You can be sliding like a FWD vehicle would, then all of a sudden the back end kicks in hard. It requires different driving techniques for a AWD or a FWD and not knowing exactly how/when the vehicle will respond is bad. There is not a way to turn it all the time on above 2nd gear.


Sent from my SM-G930F using AlpineZone mobile app


----------



## thetrailboss (Nov 14, 2016)

Hawkshot99 said:


> I had a 98' Honda CRV 5spd. To this day it was the best vehicle I have driven in snow, and even better when I got snows.
> I have since moved on to trucks, and have also owned a Honda Ridgeline that uses the same AWD system as the current CRV's. My mother has owned a 08 and currently a 14' CRV that I have driven in the snow.
> I am not a fan of the modern Honda "smart AWD" or whatever they call it. I prefer to be able to turn the AWD on or off, not let computers decide when wheels are slipping. Current Honda AWD is FWD until late it senses the wheels slipping, then it kicks in the rear. I have found this to be unpredictable, and sometimes violent to react. In my Ridgeline I had the most experience, but have felt it as well in the newer CRV'S as well. You can be sliding like a FWD vehicle would, then all of a sudden the back end kicks in hard. It requires different driving techniques for a AWD or a FWD and not knowing exactly how/when the vehicle will respond is bad. There is not a way to turn it all the time on above 2nd gear.
> 
> ...



Very good to know.  Thanks.


----------



## Hawkshot99 (Nov 14, 2016)

thetrailboss said:


> Very good to know.  Thanks.


I am guessing most companies part time AWD systems are like this, but I have no experience with any of them.  I have ridden in Subis before in the snow, and felt very comfortable.  I prefer trucks and SUV's with controllable 4x4 personally(Big part of that is I need a truck bed.)


----------



## thetrailboss (Nov 14, 2016)

Hawkshot99 said:


> I am guessing most companies part time AWD systems are like this, but I have no experience with any of them.  I have ridden in Subis before in the snow, and felt very comfortable.  I prefer trucks and SUV's with controllable 4x4 personally(Big part of that is I need a truck bed.)



Our 2005 Outback was AMAZING in snow.  The AWD worked great.  Very solid car.


----------



## BenedictGomez (Nov 14, 2016)

gmcunni said:


> weird your sensors were $33 and mine were 50.



There are some cars where the sensors are > $100.  To heck with that.


----------



## deadheadskier (Nov 14, 2016)

Why pay for the sensors?  Do you not have a local mechanic who will throw on tires without sensors?  Mine will for me.  The OEM tires that came with my car have sensors.  All the snows I've bought do not.  I just deal with the warning light being on all winter and monitor them for under inflation.


----------



## cdskier (Nov 14, 2016)

deadheadskier said:


> Why pay for the sensors?  Do you not have a local mechanic who will throw on tires without sensors?  Mine will for me.  The OEM tires that came with my car have sensors.  All the snows I've bought do not.  I just deal with the warning light being on all winter and monitor them for under inflation.


----------



## BenedictGomez (Nov 15, 2016)

deadheadskier said:


> *Why pay for the sensors?  Do you not have a local mechanic who will throw on tires without sensors?  Mine will for me. * The OEM tires that came with my car have sensors.  All the snows I've bought do not.  I just deal with the warning light being on all winter and monitor them for under inflation.



I can put the tires on myself.   Other than that, I was going to go with the above logic and just skip the sensors and deal with the annoying light, until I learned that for whatever reason the sensors on my new vehicle are cheaper than most vehicles (I was expecting something like $60 or so).  Given I'll have these tires for roughly 10 years, at $13'ish dollars per year I figured, no big deal.


----------



## deadheadskier (Nov 15, 2016)

you have tire mounting and balancing equipment?


----------



## flakeydog (Nov 15, 2016)

Back to the subject at hand here, small SUVs... bought a Mitsubishi Outlander Sport last year.  Compares directly (in terms of dimensions) to the Crosstrek but got it for way cheaper- to the tune of $3-5k cheaper.  It has good safety ratings, 8.5" ground clearance, 18" wheels standard, and a 10 year warranty.  It is deceptively roomy inside, even in the back seat.  I would say Subaru AWD is the best out there but the Mitsu certainly holds its own.  It has 2WD, AWD and what they call "4WD Lock" modes.  I just wish we had more snow to test it out last year.  Downside is that yes, it is a cheap car but that is the point.  It was the cheapest thing out there with 4WD, $20k before tax.  I could buy 2 or 3 of these for the price of one Audi.


----------



## MEtoVTSkier (Nov 16, 2016)

deadheadskier said:


> you have tire mounting and balancing equipment?



You must have missed the post where he said "mounted and balanced" from Tirerack.com. (On new spare rims I assume) He's just got to jack it up and swop sets.


----------



## BenedictGomez (Nov 16, 2016)

MEtoVTSkier said:


> You must have missed the post where he said "mounted and balanced" from Tirerack.com. (On new spare rims I assume) He's just got to jack it up and swop sets.



Exactly; and to me that's a no brainer.  Yes, it cost an extra one-time $300, but then I can swap them on and off myself every winter and spring rather than constantly having to rely on a garage.


----------



## Cornhead (Nov 16, 2016)

BenedictGomez said:


> Exactly; and to me that's a no brainer.  Yes, it cost an extra one-time $300, but then I can swap them on and off myself every winter and spring rather than constantly having to rely on a garage.


You do know you'll have to reprogram your car's computer with a special tool each time you swap wheels. I opted to skip the sensors on my snows. I will be getting my car inspected without them, Summer tires were ify. Hopefully Tirerack's list if States that require the light off is accurate, we shall see.

Sent from my XT1064 using AlpineZone mobile app


----------



## deadheadskier (Nov 16, 2016)

Yes, I did miss that part. I've got dedicated winter rims as well. Just basic black steel wheels my mechanic got from a junkyard for $25 a piece. If it's just a straight swap he charges me $20, same as a rotation which I just get done when I have the oil changed. This year I had to have new tires mounted. $40.  Tires were bought off Craigslist from another mom and pop mechanic without sensors. I would have had to order the sensors separately.

Sent from my XT1565 using AlpineZone mobile app


----------



## SIKSKIER (Nov 16, 2016)

Cornhead said:


> You do know you'll have to reprogram your car's computer with a special tool each time you swap wheels.Sent from my XT1064 using AlpineZone mobile app


My GMC trucks need no special tools.


----------



## cdskier (Nov 16, 2016)

SIKSKIER said:


> My GMC trucks need no special tools.



A special tool makes it easier/faster on my Chevy, but it can be done as well with no tools whatsoever. Put it in learning mode and let air out of the tires one by one so the pressure drops by a couple PSI. During learning mode detection of changing PSI is how it sees which sensor is for which tire on my truck.


----------



## SIKSKIER (Nov 16, 2016)

cdskier said:


> A special tool makes it easier/faster on my Chevy, but it can be done as well with no tools whatsoever. Put it in learning mode and let air out of the tires one by one so the pressure drops by a couple PSI. During learning mode detection of changing PSI is how it sees which sensor is for which tire on my truck.


Whats the special tool?


----------



## SIKSKIER (Nov 16, 2016)

OK,just learned something.Aftermarket tpms need to be reprogramed first.This is different than relearning which much still be done on most vehicles.The tool is for reprograming.
Don’t confuse TPMS relearn with sensor programming.https://www.redi-sensor.com/dont-confuse-tpms-relearn-sensor-programming/


----------



## WWF-VT (Nov 16, 2016)

I get my tires at Direct Tire in the Boston area.  Pricing is close to Tire Rack and you get free winter and spring changeover including balancing.


----------



## BenedictGomez (Nov 16, 2016)

Cornhead said:


> *You do know you'll have to reprogram your car's computer with a special tool each time you swap wheels. *I opted to skip the sensors on my snows.



Not all vehicles TPMS technology and/or reprogramming works the same.  My new vehicle is GMC, and from looking at Youtube videos on how to do it, it's amazingly simple, and requires no "special" tool (or tools at all).


----------



## cdskier (Nov 16, 2016)

SIKSKIER said:


> Whats the special tool?



No idea what it is called, but it is a little electronic thing. Put the car into learning mode. Walk around to each tire with the device, hold it next to the tire and push a button on the device and bingo...relearning complete in under a minute for all 4 tires.


----------



## bigbog (Nov 16, 2016)

gmcunni said:


> we have 2015 outback, had 08-11 CRV.  both great cars.  the subi is a very comfortable car. easy rides to/from mountains.  never tried it in serious snow but performed well in the mild stuff we had last winter.  i recall the CRV doing great in some heavy snow.  solid and predictable handling.



Torque, weight distribution and tires....


----------



## Dickc (Nov 16, 2016)

https://smile.amazon.com/gp/product/B00A3UNYW8/ref=oh_aui_detailpage_o03_s00?ie=UTF8&psc=1


cdskier said:


> No idea what it is called, but it is a little electronic thing. Put the car into learning mode. Walk around to each tire with the device, hold it next to the tire and push a button on the device and bingo...relearning complete in under a minute for all 4 tires.


----------



## Scruffy (Nov 16, 2016)

SIKSKIER said:


> OK,just learned something.Aftermarket tpms need to be reprogramed first.This is different than relearning which much still be done on most vehicles.The tool is for reprograming.
> Don’t confuse TPMS relearn with sensor programming.https://www.redi-sensor.com/dont-confuse-tpms-relearn-sensor-programming/





BenedictGomez said:


> Not all vehicles TPMS technology and/or reprogramming works the same. My new vehicle is GMC, and from looking at Youtube videos on how to do it, it's amazingly simple, and requires no "special" tool (or tools at all).





Dickc said:


> https://smile.amazon.com/gp/product/B00A3UNYW8/ref=oh_aui_detailpage_o03_s00?ie=UTF8&psc=1



And this is why people don't like TPMS systems as they are today. Epic Fail!!! TPMS systems should be all architected to the same standard. They should self learn, on any vehicle, no "tool" or device should be needed. Mount em and go. There is absolutely no technological reason why they can't.


----------



## yeggous (Nov 16, 2016)

Scruffy said:


> And this is why people don't like TPMS systems as they are today. Epic Fail!!! TPMS systems should be all architected to the same standard. They should self learn, on any vehicle, no "tool" or device should be needed. Mount em and go. There is absolutely no technological reason why they can't.



Technological no, legal yes. Patents make it impossible.


Sent from my iPhone using AlpineZone mobile app


----------



## Scruffy (Nov 16, 2016)

yeggous said:


> Technological no, legal yes. Patents make it impossible.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using AlpineZone mobile app



Not impossible at all, just more expensive.


----------



## thetrailboss (Nov 16, 2016)

Update:  leaning towards a 2016 Outback.  Any reason not to look at this?  Our 2005 Outback was great.


----------



## WoodCore (Nov 16, 2016)

Turned in my 2013 Outback 3.6R in June this year and upgraded to a 2016, 3.6R w/Eyesight, sweet ride!!!!!

The car has good horsepower and torque, great ground clearance, Subaru traction and technology that really works! Eyesight system is simply amazing!


----------



## thetrailboss (Nov 16, 2016)

WoodCore said:


> Turned in my 2013 Outback 3.6R in June this year and upgraded to a 2016, 3.6R w/Eyesight, sweet ride!!!!!
> 
> The car has good horsepower and torque, great ground clearance, Subaru traction and technology that really works! Eyesight system is simply amazing!



Heard that the Eyesight System was improved over the last two years. 

We're thinking the 2.5.  Miss our 3.6 Limited, but prefer better MPG and lower price point for now.  Love our 2015 Highlander.  Retiring my 2008 Civic.


Sent from my iPhone using AlpineZone


----------



## BenedictGomez (Nov 16, 2016)

Scruffy said:


> And this is why people don't like TPMS systems as they are today. Epic Fail!!! TPMS systems should be all architected to the same standard. *They should self learn, on any vehicle, no "tool" or device should be needed. Mount em and go. There is absolutely no technological reason why they can't.*



Agreed, and when I see things like this, the cynic in me assumes it's done for money.

  With each passing year it seems like simple things on cars are unnecessarily complicated in such a manner that it drives people into the dealerships to pay for something that they normally could do for themselves.    Placing easily changeable items (spark plugs, air filter, etc...) in illogically difficult to access areas is one example.


----------



## yeggous (Nov 16, 2016)

thetrailboss said:


> Heard that the Eyesight System was improved over the last two years.
> 
> We're thinking the 2.5.  Miss our 3.6 Limited, but prefer better MPG and lower price point for now.  Love our 2015 Highlander.  Retiring my 2008 Civic.
> 
> ...



The 2.5 seems like the obvious choice considering fuel and mileage costs. Trim level is a hard call and really a function of the budget. EyeSight has been a continuous, gradual update process. The high end Outbacks now come with a heated steering wheel, which sounds like a must-have feature if you ask me.

The Outback has just average fuel economy and reliability. It's standout feature is rear cargo depth without having to get a 3-row SUV. It is the most affordable AWD wagon. It's safety record is excellent.


----------



## deadheadskier (Nov 16, 2016)

Most people don't want to do their own work.  I had a couple of VWs in the 90s I used to change my spark plugs on my own every 10K miles as it was recommended at that time.  My current Mazda I had them changed for the first time at 100K miles.  Won't need to have it done again until 200K miles.  Cost me $100.  Given how long the plugs last nowadays, I'm really not that broken up about them being located where they're difficult to change without special tools.


----------



## yeggous (Nov 16, 2016)

deadheadskier said:


> Most people don't want to do their own work.  I had a couple of VWs in the 90s I used to change my spark plugs on my own every 10K miles as it was recommended at that time.  My current Mazda I had them changed for the first time at 100K miles.  Won't need to have it done again until 200K miles.  Cost me $100.  Given how long the plugs last nowadays, I'm really not that broken up about them being located where they're difficult to change without special tools.



Same deal here on my Santa Fe. Three of the plugs are easy but other three require removing the intake manifold. Plug replacement became a multi-day project when my mechanic discovered the manifold gaskets needed to be replaced (and ordered). The gaskets are cheap but annoying. All in was about $100 total, and I'll never have to do it again.


Sent from my iPhone using AlpineZone mobile app


----------



## Smellytele (Nov 17, 2016)

On our traverse it is impossible to change out a headlight without taking apart the frontend. WTF!


----------



## cdskier (Nov 17, 2016)

Smellytele said:


> On our traverse it is impossible to change out a headlight without taking apart the frontend. WTF!



Now crap like that pisses me off. There's no reason to make things that can be easily done by a normal person that complicated. The owners manual for my Avalanche says to take it to the dealer for headlight replacement. Luckily there are plenty of youtube videos showing how to do it. You still have to take apart way more than you should to get at them. My hand was just small enough to squeeze into the space behind the passenger headlight to do it with only having to loosen it a bit without having to take too much apart.


----------



## SIKSKIER (Nov 17, 2016)

Smellytele said:


> On our traverse it is impossible to change out a headlight without taking apart the frontend. WTF!



You caught my attention here as I just bought a GMC Arcadia which is basically the same vehicle.I attached a video that shows how to change just the bulb by removing just the inner fender cowling around the wheel.It goes on to show how to change out the whole light assembly by taking apart a bunch of the frontend which looks like what our talking about.FWIW.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bhqddvtRuXQ


----------



## MEtoVTSkier (Nov 17, 2016)

Yeah, the headlights on the GMCs are a joke, the pickups are just as bad. Used to be you pulled a couple pins and lifted the headlight assembly up and swapped the bulb. Now it's a major production...


----------



## yeggous (Nov 17, 2016)

MEtoVTSkier said:


> Yeah, the headlights on the GMCs are a joke, the pickups are just as bad. Used to be you pulled a couple pins and lifted the headlight assembly up and swapped the bulb. Now it's a major production...



This is really an outdated issue. Good news is that the new LED lamps should outlast the truck.


Sent from my iPhone using AlpineZone mobile app


----------



## dlague (Nov 17, 2016)

My mechanic is saying that the newer cars are requiring specialized tools that are crazy expensive or are proprietary to dealerships.  

Now that really passes me off.

Sent from my SM-G930P using AlpineZone mobile app


----------



## BenedictGomez (Nov 17, 2016)

Smellytele said:


> *On our traverse it is impossible to change out a headlight without taking apart the frontend.* WTF!



Another great example.


----------



## Tin (Nov 17, 2016)

Another great winter driving tip....


----------



## Hawkshot99 (Nov 17, 2016)

Tin said:


> Another great winter driving tip....


Does brand matter?

Sent from my SM-G930F using AlpineZone mobile app


----------



## thetrailboss (Nov 19, 2016)

Decision made. 2017 2.5 Limited. 




Sent from my iPhone using AlpineZone


----------



## prsboogie (Nov 19, 2016)

Very nice!


Sent from my iPhone using AlpineZone


----------



## VTKilarney (Nov 20, 2016)

thetrailboss said:


> Decision made. 2017 2.5 Limited.
> 
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using AlpineZone


Neither engine in the Subaru is compelling, but I just couldn't live in mountain country with the 2.5.  0-60 in 9.6 seconds is a very tough pill to swallow.  

From Edmunds: 
"The standard, four-cylinder Outback 2.5i has enough power for safe highway merging, but load it up with people and gear and it feels overwhelmed, especially if you're driving at high elevation. Around town, the jumpy responsiveness of the gas pedal and the spongy brake pedal also make the 2.5i harder to drive smoothly than it should be. The six-cylinder provides more punch, and if you frequently load up the car or live in a mountainous area, you're going to want this larger engine. Its fuel economy penalty isn't that bad, especially if you go easy on the throttle."

But these are personal decisions, and you no doubt believed that the $350 or so saved per year on gas was worth the performance penalty.  There isn't a right or wrong answer - just what works best for you.  That's why they have different models.

Congratulations the new purchase!  It's an upgrade from the Civic, for sure.


----------



## thetrailboss (Nov 20, 2016)

prsboogie said:


> Very nice!
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using AlpineZone



Thanks!


Sent from my iPhone using AlpineZone


----------



## thetrailboss (Nov 20, 2016)

VTKilarney said:


> Neither engine in the Subaru is compelling, but I just couldn't live in mountain country with the 2.5.  0-60 in 9.6 seconds is a very tough pill to swallow.
> 
> From Edmunds:
> "The standard, four-cylinder Outback 2.5i has enough power for safe highway merging, but load it up with people and gear and it feels overwhelmed, especially if you're driving at high elevation. Around town, the jumpy responsiveness of the gas pedal and the spongy brake pedal also make the 2.5i harder to drive smoothly than it should be. The six-cylinder provides more punch, and if you frequently load up the car or live in a mountainous area, you're going to want this larger engine. Its fuel economy penalty isn't that bad, especially if you go easy on the throttle."
> ...



So I see our resident naysayer is back and trying to deliver a zinger.  #winning :roll:

If you had read my posts you would have seen that this was to replace the smaller car in our household.  We have a new Toyota Highlander that has plenty of power and is the main vehicle we use when we go up for skiing and traveling with multiple folks. We needed a fuel efficient smaller crossover ideally for me mainly.  We decided to go from a Crosstrek to an Outback because we actually owned a 3.6 for 5 years and loved it.  That was our "big" vehicle then.  The 3.6 in this trim is about $6,000 more in cost and does not get as good of mileage.  So the price difference was a bit more than we'd like.  Someday we may return to the 3.6 but the 2.5, which I did research on and drove, was fine and the EyeSight features were really great.  

It's too bad that you just cannot be happy for someone instead of trying to shit on them all the time.  You should get help for your issues.


----------



## Tin (Nov 20, 2016)

VTKilarney said:


> Neither engine in the Subaru is compelling, but I just couldn't live in mountain country with the 2.5.  0-60 in 9.6 seconds is a very tough pill to swallow.
> 
> From Edmunds:
> "The standard, four-cylinder Outback 2.5i has enough power for safe highway merging, but load it up with people and gear and it feels overwhelmed, especially if you're driving at high elevation. Around town, the jumpy responsiveness of the gas pedal and the spongy brake pedal also make the 2.5i harder to drive smoothly than it should be. The six-cylinder provides more punch, and if you frequently load up the car or live in a mountainous area, you're going to want this larger engine. Its fuel economy penalty isn't that bad, especially if you go easy on the throttle."
> ...




The 2.5 is a slug but a big time money saver. It has a lot less mechanical issues than the turbo or 6 cylinder and a lot more room under the hood to work with (less labor costs).


Congrats TB! Definitely make sure it was not one of the June productions that has loose calipers and hubs, no big issue just a torque wrench to double check them.


----------



## thetrailboss (Nov 20, 2016)

Tin said:


> The 2.5 is a slug but a big time money saver. It has a lot less mechanical issues than the turbo or 6 cylinder and a lot more room under the hood to work with (less labor costs).
> 
> 
> Congrats TB! Definitely make sure it was not one of the June productions that has loose calipers and hubs, no big issue just a torque wrench to double check them.



I will look into that Tin.  Thanks.  It had some pep for me and most of my driving is highway.  My trips to the mountain are usually solo or in the Highlander.  So is it a beast?  No.  But traded that off for cost, 0% APR, better mileage, more toys, and mileage.


----------



## Tin (Nov 20, 2016)

thetrailboss said:


> I will look into that Tin.  Thanks.  It had some pep for me and most of my driving is highway.  My trips to the mountain are usually solo or in the Highlander.  So is it a beast?  No.  But traded that off for cost, 0% APR, better mileage, more toys, and mileage.




Yup, there is nothing wrong with the 2.5. If it gets you from A to B safely, who cares!


----------



## billski (Nov 20, 2016)

I take these "professional reviews" with a grain of salt.  Either these guys want to drag race when the light turns green or drive like a Masshole.  If one drives with civility and patience, you'll get there 1:45 after the "professional".  Fill up the car? with what, a bunch of 300 pound passengers?  'Cmon, how many people really drive this thing with four adults in it or are transporting gold bullion?  Overwhelmed at high altitude?  WTF, wrong octane Edmunds?  I also don't get this "smoothly" comment.  The reviewer must have a lead foot from the start.  Every car's gas pedal takes some getting used to.  Spongy brakes? Sounds like tailgate driving to me.

I bought mine for its smaller size, great gas mileage (34mpg from Boston to Franconia Notch) more to reduce my carbon footprint, but the cost savings doesn't hurt.  Clearance, visibility, go-most-anywhere have great value for me.  

VT, what's the problem with 0-60 in 9.6 seconds?  What does that get you?  I just don't get it.

FD: 2016 Forester 2.5 Limited with x-mode.  I haul more maintenance gear to forest trailheads and back country destinations, and winter drive north mostly during snowstorms.  Daily commute is a mundane experience I could do just fine in any vehicle.


----------



## thetrailboss (Nov 20, 2016)

billski said:


> I take these "professional reviews" with a grain of salt.  Either these guys want to drag race when the light turns green or drive like a Masshole.  If one drives with civility and patience, you'll get there 1:45 after the "professional".  Fill up the car? with what, a bunch of 300 pound passengers?  'Cmon, how many people really drive this thing with four adults in it or are transporting gold bullion?  Overwhelmed at high altitude?  WTF, wrong octane Edmunds?  I also don't get this "smoothly" comment.  The reviewer must have a lead foot from the start.  Every car's gas pedal takes some getting used to.  Spongy brakes? Sounds like tailgate driving to me.
> 
> I bought mine for its smaller size, great gas mileage (34mpg from Boston to Franconia Notch) more to reduce my carbon footprint, but the cost savings doesn't hurt.  Clearance, visibility, go-most-anywhere have great value for me.
> 
> ...



I agree.  I read Edmunds and Car and Driver.  Both only had the low power issue with the car.  That was it.  I also realized that these guys sit around all day and test drive cars for fun.  Many probably have pretty expensive high performance cars on their own because it's their life.

And you'll probably like that we went with the PZEV version.

Off topic Bill I saw that you mention that you lug trail maintenance gear and have seen your posts that you've been volunteering time to help the WMNF.  That's a great thing to do.  Those trails see a lot of use.  Had I still been in NE I would do the same.  Thanks for doing that hard yeoman's work.


----------



## billski (Nov 20, 2016)

thetrailboss said:


> I agree. ... Thanks for doing that hard yeoman's work.



Any compliment coming from trailboss is quite a compliment indeed.  I appreciate your kind words.   

You know, I have pzev on my car, but it wasn't anything I asked for.  I just thought they all came that way.

BTW, I even spilled a quart of paint in back on the rubber mats and got it all gouged up from the cutter mattock the first month I had it.  That's the other thing about it, I just don't worry about it getting scuffed up.  Enjoy your Forester.  I'm a small guy so I pump the seat way up high and love the sloping hood.  It gives me great visibility on forest roads going up a steep incline and can't see a damned thing.


----------



## VTKilarney (Nov 20, 2016)

Trailboss,

I have no doubt that the car will work for you.  No doubt at all.

Billski, the acceleration issue definitely comes into play when trying to pass on a non-interstate highway.  For me, living in Vermont, it's a actually a safety issue.  I wouldn't attempt to pass without the extra oomph.  When you are caught behind a truck, it can mean getting to your destination minutes earlier.

That's just the biggest example, but I understand how people can differ.


----------



## JimG. (Nov 20, 2016)

VTKilarney said:


> Trailboss,
> 
> I have no doubt that the car will work for you.  No doubt at all.
> 
> ...



Wow, whole minutes? 

Hopefully I never get stuck in front of you.

Or that you never get stuck behind me.


----------



## VTKilarney (Nov 20, 2016)

JimG. said:


> Wow, whole minutes?
> 
> Hopefully I never get stuck in front of you.
> 
> Or that you never get stuck behind me.



Absolutely.  A truck on Route 100 is going to delay me by several minutes if I can't get past it.

I see that I didn't word it well, though. PASSING gets you to your destination several minutes earlier.


----------



## MEtoVTSkier (Nov 20, 2016)

Yeah, and it's only gonna get worse now with the winter weather moving in and all the idiots out there with the worn out all season radials trying to creep along in snow country, holding everyone else up.


----------



## JimG. (Nov 20, 2016)

VTKilarney said:


> Absolutely.  A truck on Route 100 is going to delay me by several minutes if I can't get past it.
> 
> I see that I didn't word it well, though. PASSING gets you to your destination several minutes earlier.



I have been there; when I was younger I tried to drive to places and get there before I left home.

Then I got married and had children. Having loved ones in the car with me made me realize slower works OK too.


----------



## thetrailboss (Nov 20, 2016)

JimG. said:


> I have been there; when I was younger I tried to drive to places and get there before I left home.
> 
> Then I got married and had children. Having loved ones in the car with me made me realize slower works OK too.



+ 1.  And as someone who frequently drove 125, 100, 17, and many other roads in that area, I just gave myself enough time to get to where I was going and passed when it was safe.  I know those roads, as well as 2, 4, 5, 7, 91, 89, etc. all too well and know the trouble spots.  I'm not sure why we are on this tangent about needing more horsepower to "pass" on these roads.  I managed completely fine with my Civic for years.  It was a treat to drive the 3.6 on these roads, but certainly not a life or death thing.


----------



## billski (Nov 20, 2016)

Wow, this thread has really gone tangential!    I suppose for some people,. they just get used to driving at a certain speed.  For me, I've always been a fairly mellow driver, short a a road rage moment now and then.   Long ago, a colleague said that when he travels on a multilane highway he stays to the left, drivers the speed limit and let's everyone else do the fighting and jockeying.  It kept his stress levels down.

I always found that most people who do save that extra few minutes end up squandering it once they get to where they are going.

I also once met a couple who wanted to hurry up and get to their vacation spot so they could slow down and relax.  I kid you not, they were dead serious.

If the folks in front of me are going significantly slower than the road safely permits, I will pass them, but only when I'm not going to stress about it.

There are only two times when I break out of my stress-free zone.  First, when I'm absolutely going to be late, late late to a really really important date.  The other is a downright emergency, like someone on their deathbed or an urgent ride to a hospital.  But in that case, I'd probably call 911 anyways.

If I'm behind a slow driver, I just keep a safe distance.  It gives me time to text, send email and play video games.


----------



## VTKilarney (Nov 20, 2016)

I agree with much of what is being said, but nobody wants to be behind a log truck for 30 miles.  Nobody.


----------



## deadheadskier (Nov 20, 2016)

So, will a Porsche Cayenne turbo be your next ride then?  



Sent from my XT1565 using AlpineZone mobile app


----------



## KD7000 (Nov 20, 2016)

As long as it has snow tires, sure!


----------



## VTKilarney (Nov 20, 2016)

deadheadskier said:


> So, will a Porsche Cayenne turbo be your next ride then?
> 
> 
> 
> Sent from my XT1565 using AlpineZone mobile app


That's overkill, but something tells me that you already knew that.

I have driven the 12 cylinder Audi A8, though.  That's one heck of a ride.


----------



## deadheadskier (Nov 20, 2016)

VTKilarney said:


> That's overkill, but something tells me that you already knew that.



There's a long standing member of this forum that drives one.  Perhaps they don't think it's overkill even though you do.  Kind of like how someone else might think your suggestion of a V6 Subaru is overkill for their needs.


----------



## VTKilarney (Nov 21, 2016)

deadheadskier said:


> There's a long standing member of this forum that drives one.  Perhaps they don't think it's overkill even though you do.  Kind of like how someone else might think your suggestion of a V6 Subaru is overkill for their needs.


Take it up with Edmunds.  Trailboss said that he read the Edmund's review. He didn't hear anything new whatsoever from me.  And yet you insist on arguing...  Pot, meet kettle.


----------



## deadheadskier (Nov 21, 2016)

VTKilarney said:


> Take it up with Edmunds.



Not really concerned with what Edmunds thinks.  I just find it a little odd why anyone would post and agree with a negative review of someone else's purchase after the fact.  It's kind of like if someone said, "Hey, I bought some new Rossignols!" and the response was, "Congrats, but Ski Magazine says they suck."


----------



## VTKilarney (Nov 21, 2016)

It is what it is.  My opinion doesn't change that.  Move on, already.


----------



## andrec10 (Nov 21, 2016)

thetrailboss said:


> Update:  leaning towards a 2016 Outback.  Any reason not to look at this?  Our 2005 Outback was great.



I would do it! It should be a really good price since it's a leftover.


Sent from my iPhone using AlpineZone


----------



## wtcobb (Nov 21, 2016)

Not really a small SUV, but Subie previewed their new 2018 seven seater: http://www.outsideonline.com/2138276/your-familys-next-subaru


----------



## deadheadskier (Nov 21, 2016)

wtcobb said:


> Not really a small SUV, but Subie previewed their new 2018 seven seater: http://www.outsideonline.com/2138276/your-familys-next-subaru


Looks like a heavily styled Highlander

Sent from my XT1565 using AlpineZone mobile app


----------



## wa-loaf (Nov 21, 2016)

deadheadskier said:


> Looks like a heavily styled Highlander
> 
> Sent from my XT1565 using AlpineZone mobile app



It's actually much bigger, like ChevyTahoe size.


----------



## wtcobb (Nov 21, 2016)

1/2" longer than a Tahoe. Much of the styling will be toned down/removed entirely for production (it's still a Subaru...) but for the show they jazzed it up with blacked out glass and blue trim lights.


----------



## thetrailboss (Nov 21, 2016)

deadheadskier said:


> Not really concerned with what Edmunds thinks.  I just find it a little odd why anyone would post and agree with a negative review of someone else's purchase after the fact.  It's kind of like if someone said, "Hey, I bought some new Rossignols!" and the response was, "Congrats, but Ski Magazine says they suck."



+1

Let's not kid ourselves, VTK, that's what was going on. 


Sent from my iPhone using AlpineZone


----------



## dlague (Nov 21, 2016)

This tread has been pretty funny to read!  I think it has hijacked a dozen ways to Sunday.  The good thing - at least new threads were not started for each topic change.

Sent from my SM-G930P using AlpineZone mobile app


----------



## thetrailboss (Nov 21, 2016)

dlague said:


> This tread has been pretty funny to read!  I think it has hijacked a dozen ways to Sunday.  The good thing - at least new threads were not started for each topic change.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G930P using AlpineZone mobile app



+ 1 :lol:


----------



## BenedictGomez (Nov 21, 2016)

billski said:


> *I take these "professional reviews" with a grain of salt.  Either these guys want to drag race when the light turns green or drive like a Masshole. *



THIS.

The "power" aspect of professional car reviews I take with a grain of sale.  Sorry, but I dont think most people intend to take the family minivan onto the track at Daytona International or Watkins Glen.  Some of them read ridiculously with regard to that metric.



wa-loaf said:


> *It's actually much bigger, like ChevyTahoe size.*



That thing looks ugly as hell, but as a heavy SUV lover I applaud Subaru's getting into the large size SUV game.


----------



## prsboogie (Nov 21, 2016)

wtcobb said:


> 1/2" longer than a Tahoe. Much of the styling will be toned down/removed entirely for production (it's still a Subaru...) but for the show they jazzed it up with blacked out glass and blue trim lights.



God I hope they don't. I love they way that looks


Sent from my iPhone using AlpineZone


----------



## BenedictGomez (Nov 21, 2016)

Picked up my winter tires on Saturday at the Tire Rack warehouse in Delaware, which is about a 5-iron over the Jersey border. 

 Picking them up saved me $125 ($100 really after factoring in cost of gasoline), and the 3 Tire Rack employees I met couldnt have been any friendlier.  Entire process took _maybe _5 minutes, if that. Highly recommend it if you live in PA or NJ.  

 Even got to do some tax-free Christmas shopping at the Christiana Mall & outlets afterwards.


----------



## wa-loaf (Nov 21, 2016)

BenedictGomez said:


> Picked up my winter tires on Saturday at the Tire Rack warehouse in Delaware, which is about a 5-iron over the Jersey border.
> 
> Picking them up saved me $125 ($100 really after factoring in cost of gasoline), and the 3 Tire Rack employees I met couldnt have been any friendlier.  Entire process took _maybe _5 minutes, if that. Highly recommend it if you live in PA or NJ.



I believe they also have a warehouse in CT near Hartford if you live in that area.


----------



## cdskier (Nov 21, 2016)

BenedictGomez said:


> Picked up my winter tires on Saturday at the Tire Rack warehouse in Delaware, which is about a 5-iron over the Jersey border.
> 
> Picking them up saved me $125 ($100 really after factoring in cost of gasoline), and the 3 Tire Rack employees I met couldnt have been any friendlier.  Entire process took _maybe _5 minutes, if that. Highly recommend it if you live in PA or NJ.
> 
> Even got to do some tax-free Christmas shopping at the Christiana Mall & outlets afterwards.



Unfortunately I'm pretty much exactly in the middle of the DE and CT Tire Rack warehouses. 120 miles to DE or 130 to CT. Would be a nice option if it wasn't a 2 hour drive.


----------



## MEtoVTSkier (Nov 21, 2016)

cdskier said:


> Unfortunately I'm pretty much exactly in the middle of the DE and CT Tire Rack warehouses. 120 miles to DE or 130 to CT. Would be a nice option if it wasn't a 2 hour drive.



Yeah, but you could always justify the trip up to CT, and just continue on and do a little early season skiing!


----------



## BenedictGomez (Nov 21, 2016)

cdskier said:


> Would be a nice option if it wasn't a 2 hour drive.



It was about a 2 hour drive for me, but I didn't mind because we needed to do a ton of Christmas shopping and we love that big Christiana Mall and all the box stores that surround it all being in one compact place.  It was a very productive day, and the Christmas shopping is near done (and tax free to boot).


----------



## yeggous (Nov 21, 2016)

I didn't realize picking up at the Tire Rack warehouses was an option. The CT warehouse is unfortunately a two hour drive. Picking up at the warehouse would presumably mean that I'd have to pay tax? That would quickly erode any savings and make it not worth the trip


----------



## dlague (Nov 22, 2016)

yeggous said:


> I didn't realize picking up at the Tire Rack warehouses was an option. The CT warehouse is unfortunately a two hour drive. Picking up at the warehouse would presumably mean that I'd have to pay tax? That would quickly erode any savings and make it not worth the trip


Well if you continue north then you could ski as well.

Sent from my SM-G930P using AlpineZone mobile app


----------



## xwhaler (Nov 22, 2016)

I spend quite a bit of time looking for deals on tires for my 3 vehicles as well as friends/family who ask me for help.
I've almost never found TireRack to be the best value out there to be honest. I frequent their site for the research/reviews they have but have never found the pricing to be competitive.
Sometimes even picking up (not a realistic option for me anyways) doesn't make them less $

DiscountTireDirect.com and Tirebuyer.com are my go-to's these days. Treaddepot.com is also solid.


----------



## Puck it (Nov 22, 2016)

xwhaler said:


> I spend quite a bit of time looking for deals on tires for my 3 vehicles as well as friends/family who ask me for help.
> I've almost never found TireRack to be the best value out there to be honest. I frequent their site for the research/reviews they have but have never found the pricing to be competitive.
> Sometimes even picking up (not a realistic option for me anyways) doesn't make them less $
> 
> DiscountTireDirect.com and Tirebuyer.com are my go-to's these days. Treaddepot.com is also solid.


Discount tire matched the Simple Tire price of $130 so I could use the rebates from daughter's snow tire and wheel package.


----------



## thetrailboss (Nov 22, 2016)

So just took my first 300 mile road trip for work with the new Subie.  Amazing.  31 mpg average.  The assisted cruise control worked great at pacing the car in traffic, avoiding hard stops, and saving gas.  The EyeSight worked fine in the bad weather.  The lane assist worked and gentl nudged the car back into the lane if it felt I was drifting.  It was like a magnet pushing you back--subtle.  Quiet ride.  Never got above 2500 RPMs and had plenty of horse to get up passes.  The clearance was great to get me to the site I had to get to for work.  

The voice control was amazing and my phone is seemless with the car.  

A great ride.


----------



## gmcunni (Nov 22, 2016)

glad it is all working well for you.



thetrailboss said:


> The voice control was amazing and my phone is seemless with the car.



^ this is my 1 gripe on our 2015, sound like they improved it but the integration with SIRI/my iphone is horrible.


----------



## VTKilarney (Nov 22, 2016)

Once you get a car with adaptive cruise control you can never go back to regular cruise control.  Just about everyone I know turns off lane assist - but that's because on the back roads they purposely cross the yellow line from time to time.


----------



## thetrailboss (Nov 22, 2016)

gmcunni said:


> glad it is all working well for you.
> 
> 
> 
> ^ this is my 1 gripe on our 2015, sound like they improved it but the integration with SIRI/my iphone is horrible.



Yes, it works great.  Can control climate control, switch the radio, etc.  Very easy.


----------



## thetrailboss (Nov 22, 2016)

VTKilarney said:


> Once you get a car with adaptive cruise control you can never go back to regular cruise control.  Just about everyone I know turns off lane assist - but that's because on the back roads they purposely cross the yellow line from time to time.



Yes, Lane Assist is good for highway driving really. On narrow roads it will drive you nuts.


----------



## SIKSKIER (Nov 23, 2016)

I love mt lane assist after I've had a couple beers.


----------



## Smellytele (Nov 23, 2016)

SIKSKIER said:


> I love mt lane assist after I've had a couple beers.



While texting also


----------



## thetrailboss (Dec 25, 2016)

Bump.  Already hit 1,800 miles and love the car still.  Power has not been an issue for me at least.  AWD has been great.  The car has been very good on gas....highway, trips to Alta/Snowbird, and warming up on cold days is netting me about 24 mpg right now.  Not bad for a full size wagon with AWD.  Highway is 30 no problem.  

Talked to another couple who had a 2009 Impreza Sport and recently traded it in.  GM owned a significant stake of Subaru at that time and they really made Subaru cut costs and reduce quality.  Apparently lots of Outback 2.4's had issues in this 2005-2010 timeframe or so.  He was saying that Subaru kept it quiet, but their cars had engines blowing out and other issues.  As to our friends, their Impreza had a lot of issues with the transmission, engine, suspension, etc.  They just got the wife a 2016 Subaru Cross Trek and it is night and day.  He said that when you closed the door on the Impreza it sounded like a tin can; the Cross Trek is a quality car in his mind and he works on cars.  Glad we dodged the quality issues--our 2005 3.6 was a beast.  This car is very nice and drives nicely.  

One comment that does resonate with me is that a lot of the interior features and trim are pretty much THE SAME as our 2005 car.  The climate control is pretty much identical with a few cosmetic changes.  It works for me and it feels familiar which is nice, but I would have appreciated a bit more thought and innovation considering it has been 12 model years.


----------



## yeggous (Dec 26, 2016)

thetrailboss said:


> Bump.  Already hit 1,800 miles and love the car still.  Power has not been an issue for me at least.  AWD has been great.  The car has been very good on gas....highway, trips to Alta/Snowbird, and warming up on cold days is netting me about 24 mpg right now.  Not bad for a full size wagon with AWD.  Highway is 30 no problem.
> 
> Talked to another couple who had a 2009 Impreza Sport and recently traded it in.  GM owned a significant stake of Subaru at that time and they really made Subaru cut costs and reduce quality.  Apparently lots of Outback 2.4's had issues in this 2005-2010 timeframe or so.  He was saying that Subaru kept it quiet, but their cars had engines blowing out and other issues.  As to our friends, their Impreza had a lot of issues with the transmission, engine, suspension, etc.  They just got the wife a 2016 Subaru Cross Trek and it is night and day.  He said that when you closed the door on the Impreza it sounded like a tin can; the Cross Trek is a quality car in his mind and he works on cars.  Glad we dodged the quality issues--our 2005 3.6 was a beast.  This car is very nice and drives nicely.
> 
> One comment that does resonate with me is that a lot of the interior features and trim are pretty much THE SAME as our 2005 car.  The climate control is pretty much identical with a few cosmetic changes.  It works for me and it feels familiar which is nice, but I would have appreciated a bit more thought and innovation considering it has been 12 model years.



Would be interested to hear why you think their reliability ratings are taking a nosedive right now.


Sent from my iPhone using AlpineZone mobile app


----------



## 〽❄❅ (Dec 26, 2016)

thetrailboss said:


> Decision made. 2017 2.5 Limited.
> 
> View attachment 21031
> 
> ...


Good choice TB, what color?


----------



## thetrailboss (Dec 26, 2016)

〽❄❅;964752 said:
			
		

> Good choice TB, what color?



Twilight blue


Sent from my iPhone using AlpineZone


----------



## thetrailboss (Dec 26, 2016)

yeggous said:


> Would be interested to hear why you think their reliability ratings are taking a nosedive right now.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using AlpineZone mobile app



Haven't heard that. 


Sent from my iPhone using AlpineZone


----------



## yeggous (Dec 26, 2016)

thetrailboss said:


> Haven't heard that.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using AlpineZone



They've been tanking for a few years now. Both J.D. Power and Consumer Reports. 
http://www.torquenews.com/1084/subaru-gets-iced-jd-power-vehicle-dependability-study



Sent from my iPhone using AlpineZone mobile app


----------



## thetrailboss (Dec 26, 2016)

yeggous said:


> They've been tanking for a few years now. Both J.D. Power and Consumer Reports.
> http://www.torquenews.com/1084/subaru-gets-iced-jd-power-vehicle-dependability-study
> 
> 
> ...



That's a dated article and discusses issues with 2013-2015 vehicles. 

Just skimmed the CR review for the 2017 and no surprises there. Nothing like you were saying. 

JD Power's ratings for the 2016 Outback were fine. 


Sent from my iPhone using AlpineZone


----------



## Scruffy (Dec 26, 2016)

thetrailboss said:


> That's a dated article and discusses issues with 2013-2015 vehicles.
> 
> Just skimmed the CR review for the 2017 and no surprises there. Nothing like you were saying.
> 
> ...



Most likely the oil consumption issue of the 2013-2015 years. Related to bad rings. The good thing is Subaru ( albeit after a class action ) replaced the short blocks of any car with the issue, even after the power train warranty was past. 

They also stepped up and took care of their customers when they had the head gasket issues.


----------



## yeggous (Dec 26, 2016)

thetrailboss said:


> That's a dated article and discusses issues with 2013-2015 vehicles.
> 
> Just skimmed the CR review for the 2017 and no surprises there. Nothing like you were saying.
> 
> ...



2016 would be initial quality as opposed to dependability. If you watch the CR Talking Cars episode on this year's survey they mention the new Impreza not being counted. By removing the Impreza it weighted more heavily to the less reliable models in their lineup. Overall the reliability is just average. 

Some manufacturers have electronics and infotainment issues that drag down numbers. Subaru has avoided this by eschewing the high tech gadgets which kept their numbers high in the past. Unfortunately their major mechanical issues (head gasket and oil burn) have caught up with them and brought them down into the fold.


Sent from my iPhone using AlpineZone mobile app


----------



## WWF-VT (Dec 26, 2016)

Scruffy said:


> They also stepped up and took care of their customers when they had the head gasket issues.



Not me….cost over $2K on head gasket replacement on 2007 Outback.


----------



## fiddleski (Dec 26, 2016)

WWF-VT said:


> Not me….cost over $2K on head gasket replacement on 2007 Outback.



Same here. The head gasket issue lasted for many model years without being addressed. Ours was a 2000, for example.


----------



## Scruffy (Dec 26, 2016)

WWF-VT said:


> Not me….cost over $2K on head gasket replacement on 2007 Outback.



That sucks. Some customers got what's called a "goodwill warranty" for their Head Gasket wows,if they were out of warranty.


----------



## elks (Dec 26, 2016)

WWF-VT said:


> Not me….cost over $2K on head gasket replacement on 2007 Outback.



Same here.  Got stuck with an expensive head gasket replacement on my 2004 Impreza wagon.


----------



## 〽❄❅ (Dec 26, 2016)

thetrailboss said:


> Twilight blue
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using AlpineZone


 - oh nice. Best of luck with it.


----------



## BenedictGomez (Dec 26, 2016)

> This won’t show up until next year’s study when they focus on 2014 model year vehicles.



So the study looks at cars that are 3 years old.   I guess they feels that's the adequate amount of time to pull enough data?


----------



## yeggous (Dec 27, 2016)

BenedictGomez said:


> So the study looks at cars that are 3 years old.   I guess they feels that's the adequate amount of time to pull enough data?



Presumably?

The NPR article on the CR report specifically calls out problems with the Outback and Legacy.

http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-...p-honda-and-subaru-down-says-consumer-reports


Sent from my iPhone using AlpineZone mobile app


----------



## thetrailboss (Dec 27, 2016)

yeggous said:


> Presumably?
> 
> The NPR article on the CR report specifically calls out problems with the Outback and Legacy.
> 
> ...



I guess one vague sentence supports your argument.  :roll:  It's pretty clear that you have a beef with Subaru.  More power to you I guess.  


Sent from my iPad using AlpineZone


----------



## yeggous (Dec 27, 2016)

thetrailboss said:


> I guess one vague sentence supports your argument.  :roll:  It's pretty clear that you have a beef with Subaru.  More power to you I guess.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPad using AlpineZone



It's not any sort of personal grudge. I just think there are better options out there. They have some sort of marketing reality distortion field much like Jeep. People seem to consider them to be reliable just because they are Japanese, but times are changing. We've seen this with Honda too, especially when you look at the Acura satisfaction numbers.

The one clear niche car that Subaru offers is the Impreza. I get how that can be a compelling option.


Sent from my iPhone using AlpineZone mobile app


----------



## thetrailboss (Mar 21, 2017)

Bump.  Have 4400 miles on my Outback.  Consistently getting 26-27 mpg.  No issues at all going up BCC/LCC here in Utah with it.  Love it.  The Eyesight Technology is awesome and makes driving so much easier.  







Right where she belongs.....at Alta:






Bear Lake, Utah:


----------

