Re: Will Toyota ever make a station wagon again?

Scott in Florida <askifyouwant@mindspring.net> wrote:
[color=blue]
>That is why I continue to drive my cherry '92 Corolla Wagon....[/color]

would love to have that car!

On Tue, 16 Jan 2007 17:23:30 -0600, [email]me@privacy.net[/email] wrote:
[color=blue]
>Scott in Florida <askifyouwant@mindspring.net> wrote:
>[color=green]
>>That is why I continue to drive my cherry '92 Corolla Wagon....[/color]
>
>would love to have that car![/color]

Maybe in ten years....LOL


--

Scott in Florida

Toyota still builds station wagons, they just don't call anything they sell
in the US a wagon. In the UK, they sell a "5 Door Estate." In the US this
would be a station wagon. See
[url]http://www.toyota.co.uk/vs2/pdf/CO6_69_over.pdf[/url] .

What is the Matrix if it isn't a station wagon? It might be a poorly
designed station wagon, but if you had sold something like that 20 years
ago, it would have been called a station wagon.

How about the Highlander, or the RAV4? In 1980, they would have been
classed as station wagons. I don't think anyone seriously considers these
things SUVs.

For that matter, what is a 4Runner, but a really poorly design station
wagon? I suppose you could call it an SUV, but it a poor one of those too.

Car manufacturers don't want to call anything a "Station Wagon," since that
has negative connotations these days. And now, they don't want to call
vehicles mini-vans either. So now we have crossovers. I wonder how long it
will be before that term is as out of favor as "station wagon?" But really,
Camry's, RAV4s, Highlanders, and Sienna all share many basic components.
Toyota might not admit it, but both the Highlander and RAV4 are just
disguised Camry Wagons.

Ed

"Scott in Florida" <askifyouwant@mindspring.net> wrote in message
news:rcqqq2tkqv4pnqgp9gvfi48ool360i32fv@4ax.com...[color=blue]
> On Tue, 16 Jan 2007 17:23:30 -0600, [email]me@privacy.net[/email] wrote:
>[color=green]
>>Scott in Florida <askifyouwant@mindspring.net> wrote:
>>[color=darkred]
>>>That is why I continue to drive my cherry '92 Corolla Wagon....[/color]
>>
>>would love to have that car![/color]
>
> Maybe in ten years....LOL
>
>
> --
>
> Scott in Florida
>[/color]

"C. E. White" <cewhite@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:SoArh.12508$yx6.6036@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...[color=blue]
> Toyota still builds station wagons, they just don't call anything they
> sell in the US a wagon. In the UK, they sell a "5 Door Estate." In the US
> this would be a station wagon. See
> [url]http://www.toyota.co.uk/vs2/pdf/CO6_69_over.pdf[/url] .
>
> What is the Matrix if it isn't a station wagon? It might be a poorly
> designed station wagon, but if you had sold something like that 20 years
> ago, it would have been called a station wagon.
>
> How about the Highlander, or the RAV4? In 1980, they would have been
> classed as station wagons. I don't think anyone seriously considers these
> things SUVs.
>
> For that matter, what is a 4Runner, but a really poorly design station
> wagon? I suppose you could call it an SUV, but it a poor one of those too.
>
> Car manufacturers don't want to call anything a "Station Wagon," since
> that has negative connotations these days. And now, they don't want to
> call vehicles mini-vans either. So now we have crossovers. I wonder how
> long it will be before that term is as out of favor as "station wagon?"
> But really, Camry's, RAV4s, Highlanders, and Sienna all share many basic
> components. Toyota might not admit it, but both the Highlander and RAV4
> are just disguised Camry Wagons.
>
> Ed[/color]

They sure look like SUVs to me. A wagon doesn't sit nearly as high up as
the average SUV. I used to drive a (total POS Subaru Loyale). I think I
know what a wagon looks like...

Natalie[color=blue]
>
> "Scott in Florida" <askifyouwant@mindspring.net> wrote in message
> news:rcqqq2tkqv4pnqgp9gvfi48ool360i32fv@4ax.com...[color=green]
>> On Tue, 16 Jan 2007 17:23:30 -0600, [email]me@privacy.net[/email] wrote:
>>[color=darkred]
>>>Scott in Florida <askifyouwant@mindspring.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>>That is why I continue to drive my cherry '92 Corolla Wagon....
>>>
>>>would love to have that car![/color]
>>
>> Maybe in ten years....LOL
>>
>>
>> --
>>
>> Scott in Florida
>>[/color]
>
>[/color]

"C. E. White" <cewhite@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:SoArh.12508$yx6.6036@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...[color=blue]
> Toyota still builds station wagons, they just don't call anything they
> sell in the US a wagon. In the UK, they sell a "5 Door Estate." In the US
> this would be a station wagon. See
> [url]http://www.toyota.co.uk/vs2/pdf/CO6_69_over.pdf[/url] .
>
> What is the Matrix if it isn't a station wagon? It might be a poorly
> designed station wagon, but if you had sold something like that 20 years
> ago, it would have been called a station wagon.[/color]

This I agree with.[color=blue]
>
> How about the Highlander, or the RAV4? In 1980, they would have been
> classed as station wagons. I don't think anyone seriously considers these
> things SUVs.[/color]

They're SUVs, although the RAV4 is a small one. They sit up much higher
than a station wagon & are bulkier.

Cathy

[color=blue]
>
> For that matter, what is a 4Runner, but a really poorly design station
> wagon? I suppose you could call it an SUV, but it a poor one of those too.
>
> Car manufacturers don't want to call anything a "Station Wagon," since
> that has negative connotations these days. And now, they don't want to
> call vehicles mini-vans either. So now we have crossovers. I wonder how
> long it will be before that term is as out of favor as "station wagon?"
> But really, Camry's, RAV4s, Highlanders, and Sienna all share many basic
> components. Toyota might not admit it, but both the Highlander and RAV4
> are just disguised Camry Wagons.
>
> Ed
>
> "Scott in Florida" <askifyouwant@mindspring.net> wrote in message
> news:rcqqq2tkqv4pnqgp9gvfi48ool360i32fv@4ax.com...[color=green]
>> On Tue, 16 Jan 2007 17:23:30 -0600, [email]me@privacy.net[/email] wrote:
>>[color=darkred]
>>>Scott in Florida <askifyouwant@mindspring.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>>That is why I continue to drive my cherry '92 Corolla Wagon....
>>>
>>>would love to have that car![/color]
>>
>> Maybe in ten years....LOL
>>
>>
>> --
>>
>> Scott in Florida
>>[/color]
>
>[/color]

"C. E. White" <cewhite@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:SoArh.12508$yx6.6036@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...[color=blue]
> Toyota still builds station wagons, they just don't call anything they
> sell in the US a wagon. In the UK, they sell a "5 Door Estate." In the US
> this would be a station wagon. See
> [url]http://www.toyota.co.uk/vs2/pdf/CO6_69_over.pdf[/url] .
>
> What is the Matrix if it isn't a station wagon? It might be a poorly
> designed station wagon, but if you had sold something like that 20 years
> ago, it would have been called a station wagon.
>
> How about the Highlander, or the RAV4? In 1980, they would have been
> classed as station wagons. I don't think anyone seriously considers these
> things SUVs.
>
> For that matter, what is a 4Runner, but a really poorly design station
> wagon? I suppose you could call it an SUV, but it a poor one of those too.
>
> Car manufacturers don't want to call anything a "Station Wagon," since
> that has negative connotations these days. And now, they don't want to
> call vehicles mini-vans either. So now we have crossovers. I wonder how
> long it will be before that term is as out of favor as "station wagon?"
> But really, Camry's, RAV4s, Highlanders, and Sienna all share many basic
> components. Toyota might not admit it, but both the Highlander and RAV4
> are just disguised Camry Wagons.
>
> Ed
>
> "Scott in Florida" <askifyouwant@mindspring.net> wrote in message
> news:rcqqq2tkqv4pnqgp9gvfi48ool360i32fv@4ax.com...[color=green]
>> On Tue, 16 Jan 2007 17:23:30 -0600, [email]me@privacy.net[/email] wrote:
>>[color=darkred]
>>>Scott in Florida <askifyouwant@mindspring.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>>That is why I continue to drive my cherry '92 Corolla Wagon....
>>>
>>>would love to have that car![/color]
>>
>> Maybe in ten years....LOL
>>
>>
>> --
>>
>> Scott in Florida
>>[/color]
>
>[/color]

Why don't we call them "estate cars" or something exotic like that? Don't
they call them shooting brakes at one time? Doesn't Delaware still license
them as P/C (Pleasure Commercial)?

Charles of Schaumburg

"Cathy F." <clfr@adelphiadot.net> wrote in message
news:1OudnayYrNGQSzPYnZ2dnUVZ_segnZ2d@giganews.com...
[color=blue]
> They're SUVs, although the RAV4 is a small one. They sit up much higher
> than a station wagon & are bulkier.[/color]

Then they are two of the worst SUVs ever built. No ground clearance,
minimal towing ability, minimal off road ability (and then only if you get
the AWD version instead of the front wheel drive version). And when did
"bulk" prevent something from being called a station wagon. Have you ever
seen a Buick Roadmaster Wagon?

Ed

"C. E. White" <cewhite@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:vRNrh.12625$w91.11343@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...[color=blue]
>
> "Wickeddoll®" <wickeddoll1958diespammersdie@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:eom2kj.348.1@news.evilcabal.org...
>[color=green]
>> They sure look like SUVs to me. A wagon doesn't sit nearly as high up as
>> the average SUV. I used to drive a (total POS Subaru Loyale). I think I
>> know what a wagon looks like...[/color]
>
> So what makes something an SUV as opposed to a station wagon?[/color]


Advertising.

"C. E. White" <cewhite@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:vRNrh.12625$w91.11343@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...[color=blue]
>
> "Wickeddoll®" <wickeddoll1958diespammersdie@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:eom2kj.348.1@news.evilcabal.org...
>[color=green]
>> They sure look like SUVs to me. A wagon doesn't sit nearly as high up as
>> the average SUV. I used to drive a (total POS Subaru Loyale). I think I
>> know what a wagon looks like...[/color]
>
> So what makes something an SUV as opposed to a station wagon? An SUV
> should have decent towing capacity, RAV4s and Highlanders have a 35000 lb
> max (when properly equipped). "Real" SUVs should be able to tow much more
> than this. An SUV should have decent off-road ability. Who in there right
> mind would drive a RAV4 or a Highlander on anything more difficult that
> beach sand? Jacking up a station wagon and calling it an SUV might make
> marketing sense, but it hardly makes it an SUV. And a Matrix is not
> particularly high. Nor is a RAV4. Highlanders are taller, but why? They
> still have the ground clearance of a Camry. No ground clearance, minimal
> towing ability, minimal off road ability does not make a station wagon an
> SUV no matter how high they raise the roof. It is not just Toyota that is
> labeling station wagons as SUVs or Crossovers - what is a Chrysler
> Pacifica or a Ford Freestyle if they aren't really Station Wagons? What is
> a Dodge Magnum if not a poorly designed station wagon?
>
> BTW - when I was young my family owned nothing but station wagons.
>
> Ed[/color]


Anything that can tow "much more" than 3500 lbs will be something most sane
people don't want, unless they have an actual need to tow that much, which
most people don't. With that sort of logic, everyone should buy a huge
pickup with 5th wheel, just in case they decide to buy a horse farm.

On 18 Jan 2007 09:41:41 -0800, "edv" <edramirventura@gmail.com> wrote:
[color=blue]
>IMHO A decent station wagon should either be RWD or AWD. Too much
>weight in the cargo area, is not a good scenario. Minivans, SUVs,
>Crossover UVs, are weight distributed. FWDs with heavy cargo will have
>too much wheel spin and torque will be lost.[/color]

I think you are mistaken.

My '92 Corolla FWD wagon puts cargo over the real wheels and the
engine/transmission weight over the driving wheels.

Works great!

[color=blue]
>
>On Jan 18, 9:13 am, "JoeSpareBedroom" <dishborea...@yahoo.com> wrote:[color=green]
>> "C. E. White" <cewh...@mindspring.com> wrote in messagenews:vRNrh.12625$w91.11343@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>>
>>
>>[color=darkred]
>> > "Wickeddoll®" <wickeddoll1958diespammers...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> >news:eom2kj.348.1@news.evilcabal.org...[/color]
>>[color=darkred]
>> >> They sure look like SUVs to me. A wagon doesn't sit nearly as high up as
>> >> the average SUV. I used to drive a (total POS Subaru Loyale). I think I
>> >> know what a wagon looks like...[/color]
>>[color=darkred]
>> > So what makes something an SUV as opposed to a station wagon?Advertising.[/color][/color][/color]

--

Scott in Florida

I think this is more of an issue when you are towing a heavy trailer or
one in which the weight is poorly distributed and is very tongue-heavy.
Front wheel drives tend to struggle when the front end is made
"lighter" by a heavy weight behind the rear wheels helping lift the
front wheels off the ground, causing them to lose traction on a slick
boat ramp, etc.

Intelligent users understand and can avoid these situations, of course
that's asking a lot of many people.


Scott in Florida wrote:[color=blue]
> On 18 Jan 2007 09:41:41 -0800, "edv" <edramirventura@gmail.com> wrote:
>[color=green]
> >IMHO A decent station wagon should either be RWD or AWD. Too much
> >weight in the cargo area, is not a good scenario. Minivans, SUVs,
> >Crossover UVs, are weight distributed. FWDs with heavy cargo will have
> >too much wheel spin and torque will be lost.[/color]
>
> I think you are mistaken.
>
> My '92 Corolla FWD wagon puts cargo over the real wheels and the
> engine/transmission weight over the driving wheels.
>
> Works great!
>
>[color=green]
> >
> >On Jan 18, 9:13 am, "JoeSpareBedroom" <dishborea...@yahoo.com> wrote:[color=darkred]
> >> "C. E. White" <cewh...@mindspring.com> wrote in messagenews:vRNrh.12625$w91.11343@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> > "Wickeddoll®" <wickeddoll1958diespammers...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> >> >news:eom2kj.348.1@news.evilcabal.org...
> >>
> >> >> They sure look like SUVs to me. A wagon doesn't sit nearly as highup as
> >> >> the average SUV. I used to drive a (total POS Subaru Loyale). I think I
> >> >> know what a wagon looks like...
> >>
> >> > So what makes something an SUV as opposed to a station wagon?Advertising.[/color][/color]
>
> --
>
> Scott in Florida[/color]

On Thu, 18 Jan 2007 17:12:44 +0000, C. E. White wrote:
[color=blue]
>
> "Cathy F." <clfr@adelphiadot.net> wrote in message
> news:1OudnayYrNGQSzPYnZ2dnUVZ_segnZ2d@giganews.com...
>[color=green]
>> They're SUVs, although the RAV4 is a small one. They sit up much higher
>> than a station wagon & are bulkier.[/color]
>
> Then they are two of the worst SUVs ever built. No ground clearance,
> minimal towing ability, minimal off road ability (and then only if you get
> the AWD version instead of the front wheel drive version). And when did[/color]

Hmmmm...maybe the newer ones, but the older ones (ca. 1995) were a
friggin' BLAST off road! You obviously weren't going to win Baja, but they
could go into the woods NP...


[color=blue]
> "bulk" prevent something from being called a station wagon. Have you ever
> seen a Buick Roadmaster Wagon?[/color]

You maen, Roadmonster...
[color=blue]
>
> Ed[/color]

"JoeSpareBedroom" <dishborealis@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:9%Nrh.793$B25.50@news01.roc.ny...
[color=blue]
> Anything that can tow "much more" than 3500 lbs will be something most
> sane people don't want, unless they have an actual need to tow that much,
> which most people don't. With that sort of logic, everyone should buy a
> huge pickup with 5th wheel, just in case they decide to buy a horse farm.[/color]

I was not arguing that people need vehicles that can tow more than 3500 lbs.
I was just arguing that vehicles that have minimal towing capacity aren't
SUVs - at least SUVs as originally produced (original Blazer, Full Size
Broncos, etc).

BTW when I was young, many full size US cars could tow a lot more than 3500
lbs.

Ed

"C. E. White" <cewhite@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:gUNrh.12626$w91.6251@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...[color=blue]
>
> "Cathy F." <clfr@adelphiadot.net> wrote in message
> news:1OudnayYrNGQSzPYnZ2dnUVZ_segnZ2d@giganews.com...
>[color=green]
>> They're SUVs, although the RAV4 is a small one. They sit up much higher
>> than a station wagon & are bulkier.[/color]
>
> Then they are two of the worst SUVs ever built. No ground clearance,
> minimal towing ability, minimal off road ability (and then only if you get
> the AWD version instead of the front wheel drive version). And when did
> "bulk" prevent something from being called a station wagon. Have you ever
> seen a Buick Roadmaster Wagon?
>
> Ed
>[/color]

Not since I saw an episode of "I Love Lucy"

Natalie

"C. E. White" <cewhite@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:WxTrh.12888$yx6.2453@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...[color=blue]
>
> "JoeSpareBedroom" <dishborealis@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:9%Nrh.793$B25.50@news01.roc.ny...
>[color=green]
>> Anything that can tow "much more" than 3500 lbs will be something most
>> sane people don't want, unless they have an actual need to tow that much,
>> which most people don't. With that sort of logic, everyone should buy a
>> huge pickup with 5th wheel, just in case they decide to buy a horse farm.[/color]
>
> I was not arguing that people need vehicles that can tow more than 3500
> lbs. I was just arguing that vehicles that have minimal towing capacity
> aren't SUVs - at least SUVs as originally produced (original Blazer, Full
> Size Broncos, etc).
>
> BTW when I was young, many full size US cars could tow a lot more than
> 3500 lbs.
>
> Ed[/color]


Damn. You must be REALLY old. :)