Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
You seem to revel in calling others wrong - more power to you, but the optics aren't great on that. The definition of the word "wagon" has changed over the years. I should have just added the word "today" to my post to clarify. Today nobody would refer to a Suburban as a wagon, even if, in fact, it actually is one. Not sure where I'm wrong when I actually agree with you, but whatever.
If you read what I said that you responded to originally, I said that they used to be called wagons UNTIL the term SUV was invented (in the '90s, by Ford for the then new Explorer, BTW). You argued with that and now you're just backpedaling, since you had said no one ever called them wagons. They were, BEFORE the term SUV was created. So yes, I'm calling you wrong, regardless of what you think the "optics" are.
OP doesn't want the Outback because it's "now an SUV" and you suggest a vehicle that was ALWAYS an SUV and a rather sizable at that? Something tells me you're moving in the wrong direction...
I had a Suby and went through the same quandary of what vehicle to jump to. I jumped first to the RX300 and then the RX330 ( I won't jump to the RX350). I purchased the Lexus' for their reliability and ease of drivability as I had with Suby. So I didn't head in the wrong direction. Any Suby driver knows what I'm taking about.
If you read what I said that you responded to originally, I said that they used to be called wagons UNTIL the term SUV was invented (in the '90s, by Ford for the then new Explorer, BTW). You argued with that and now you're just backpedaling, since you had said no one ever called them wagons. They were, BEFORE the term SUV was created. So yes, I'm calling you wrong, regardless of what you think the "optics" are.
You're really dead set on being "right", aren't you? This shouldn't really come as a shock to me, given the size of the chip your shoulders seem to be carrying on these forums. I reiterate, verbatim, what I said:
"Well, technically the body style of the Suburban is that of a wagon (two-box design with a separate rear compartment), but nobody [today, forgot to add, so sorry, how ever will I make up for it?] would refer to it as such." What's your problem with this statement? Yes, the Suburban is a wagon, no, nobody has referred to it as a wagon in decades.
So, in fact (there's that pesky word again) I did agree with you and there's no need to backpedal (other than to add that one word you seem to stumble so much over forgiving me for having done), but your pathological need for dominance and "correctness" is such that it clouds your ability to read words that have been typed rather than ones you imagined. I never said that "no one ever called them wagons" (emphasis, above). Please don't put words in my mouth.
Last edited by highlanderfil; 09-20-2017 at 12:44 PM..
I had a Suby and went through the same quandary of what vehicle to jump to. I jumped first to the RX300 and then the RX330 ( I won't jump to the RX350). I purchased the Lexus' for their reliability and ease of drivability as I had with Suby. So I didn't head in the wrong direction. Any Suby driver knows what I'm taking about.
I used to have a Subaru (thereby being subsumed under the "all Suby (sic) driver" population). I have no idea what you're talking about.
A Subaru wagon and a Lexus crossover are really not at all similar and if you're looking for a vehicle smaller in size than today's Outback (which OP appears to have been), the RX is the wrong way to go, as it is taller (68 inches vs 66), wider (75 vs 72) and longer (193 vs 190). Where one could question the "SUVness" of an Outback, the RX is, unquestionably, an SUV/crossover (whatever you want to call it). Compared to the 2001 Outback (184-187″ L x 69″ W x 58-63″ H), the second-gen RX (186″ L x 73″ W x 66-69″ H) is still larger. The first-gen RX is shorter, but it's also going to be pretty tough to find one that hasn't been beat to death given they stopped being produced in 2003.
But OP seems to agree with you, which makes one question what it was he was after in the first place.
Last edited by highlanderfil; 09-20-2017 at 12:45 PM..
I used to have a Subaru (thereby being subsumed under the "all Suby (sic) driver" population). I have no idea what you're talking about. A Subaru wagon and a Lexus crossover are really not at all similar and if you're looking for a vehicle smaller in size than today's Outback, the RX is NOT the way to go, as it is taller (68 inches vs 66), wider (75 vs 72) and longer (193 vs 190). Where one could question the "SUVness" of an Outback, the RX is, unquestionably, an SUV/crossover (whatever you want to call it).
But OP seems to agree with you, which makes one question what it was he was after in the first place.
The Lexus RX300/330 is not a crossover. It's style existed before everyone copied it's shape. You throwing out numbers tells me you were not truly a Suby owner. It's the feel and simplicity of driving them that makes the difference. The Forester and the B9 Tribeca did not have the feel of the Legacy Outback. I would've driven my Legacy into the ground if it weren't for my 300k cutoff for switching cars (it still exists next door with over 500k on it). My RX300 was the same thing and now my son owns it. The RX330 goes everywhere easily just like the original Suby did. Drive around and notice there are 1000s of RXs on the road.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.