He’s glad he got rid of it because the car is “slow on breaking”? Isn’t that a good thing?
Oh course, if he is only semi-literate and intended to tell us that the car had bad brakes, that is something else again, but since Consumer Reports did comment negatively on the original Yaris’ brakes, and since this was one of the negatives that I cited way back when, this is just a rehashing of ancient history, so to speak.
If you have some actual towing or off-roading to do. The Sport Trac with the 3 valve 4.6L is the way to go. The standard 4.0L V6 is underpowered in this application. The Sport Trac has the more rugged body-on-frame construction, the CX-7 has a unibody. The CX-7 is a crossover (re: glorified station wagon) The only engine offered is a turbo-charged 4 cylinder, in a vehicle of that size you will be using a fair amount of boost in ordinary driving. The fuel mileage estimates are 16 overall for the 4WD V8 Sport Trac and 18 for the AWD CX-7. The CX-7 is a bit smaller and probably handles and rides better. But the Sport Trac is more robustly constructed and can probably be had for less money since truck-based SUV’s are exactly flying off the lots.
If a 4 liter v6 is “underpowered” in a Ford, I’d go with another make. Older 3 to 4 liter in Toyota/Nissan trucks and Suv’s (esp) Pathfinders are more than adequate and with better mpg. My 4Runner 4 liter v6 tows up to 5000 lbs boats with ease.
bscar, it sounds like you are making progress. As I recall you’ve looked at a ton of vehicles and have a detailed list of wants/needs to narrow down from. Good luck.
I guess it depends on what you considered underpowered. The 4.0L Sport-Trac will offer performance compared to the 3.0/3.3L 4-Runners, and the 3.3L Pathfinders. Mileage between the 4.6L V8 Sport Trac, the 4.0L V6 4 Runner, and the 4.0L V6 Pathfinder is almost identical. The Ford and Nissan are rated the same and the Toyota eeks out an extra 0.5 MPG overall. As you might imagine the 4.6L is more powerful, and has a significant torque advantage over the V6’s. When the other’s are equipped with their optional V8 engines their fuel mileage suffers and their prices rise significantly.
To me every V6 Explorerer I’ve ever driven seemed pokey. Probably because the least powerful car I’ve ever owned was a T-Bird SC with the supercharged 3.8L V6. Everything else has been V8s. Personally I would opt for the V8 every time if I were going to tow regularly. But plenty of people make due with the V6 models and seem content.
Yeah, I have narrowed it down quite a bit. My biggest need right now is higher ground clearance for winter time. The roads around my house aren’t top priority to be plowed, and this past big snow fall we got last month showed me the value of high ground clearance over a 10 year old Civic. On a couple streets I felt like my front bumper was actually leveling off the snow as I was driving.
I think the smaller turbo on the CX-7 is probably what makes it so fun to drive, boost kicking in about 2500 RPMs.
ST v6:
Horsepower: 210 hp @ 5100 rpm
Torque: 254 ft-lbs. @ 3700 rpm
ST v8:
Horsepower: 292 hp @ 5700 rpm
Torque: 315 ft-lbs. @ 4000 rpm
CX-7:
Horsepower: 244 hp @ 5000 rpm
Torque: 258 ft-lbs. @ 2500 rpm
I dunno if it’s a good thing or not, but there’s an abundance of Sport Tracs around my town. I dunno if they sold it yet or not, but there was a bright red one that had the Adrenaline package on it which gave it a more unique look to it, but didn’t do much in the way of power. It basically looks like a lowered F150. It also has full time all wheel drive, whereas the CX-7 has part time AWD. http://www.fordvehicles.com/suvs/sporttrac/models/index.asp?nModelID=9162&nTrimID=844
I don’t really drive enough to care all that much about fuel economy, and my winter driving habits lower it a good deal as well. The lowest MPG I got with my Civic was 18.8mpg for 2 tanks in a row, but it went up last time to just over 20mpg.
I won’t be towing much of anything, and this will be used for work/store and back(5 mile round trip) and the occasional trip outta town.