If it's a rebadge of the Jeep then it isn't a clean design, it's based on a MB-Chrysler platform. Still, at least without MB pulling the purse close it might have a decent interior like the Jeep.

 

i strangely like it

 

Chrysler earned operating profit in Quarter 2. They also posted an Operating Profit in Quarter 1.

"In any case, this counts as phenomenal news for the struggling automaker, which went through bankruptcy proceedings during the second quarter of 2009."

http://www.autoblog.com/2010/07/21/marchio...g-profit-in-q2/

 

 

Typical corporate obfuscation when making earnings releases. They were quoting an operating profit number not net income. They conveniently excluded $197 million in expenses which means they actually lost $54 million. Why not use EBITDA? That's a popular measurement with Wall Street. Hey, while we're at it why not throw out a contribution margin number? Why stop there, why not use use gross margin. And those "one time charges" aren't really one time events if more of the same or different restructuring charges keep showing up every quarter. No, that was an earnings number engineered for the press release not a reflection of the true health of our investment.

 

I was towing my ski boat with my outback 5spd the other day. Bad idea. This particular boat ramp was not concrete very far and the trailer wheels where stuck in the sand. I probably lost about two years worth of clutch life getting it out.

I need another solution for times like that because they day out on the lake was fantastic.

Maybe one of the much uglier new Outbacks with the 3.6 liter auto because you still have to pay me to buy a 16mpg SUV. I don't believe what the creeping up EPA numbers say, they still get sub 20 pretty routinely. I babied a 24mpg rated Enclave for a full tank at a steady 65 and got 17.5 mpg in it. EPA numbers don't mean sh*t. A few mags did a test of the new four banger Equinox rated 32 highway and got ..........18 mpg.

Auto companies lie. Whether it is inflated SUV MPG numbers or these new sports and pony cars that get the first review and do blitering 60 and 1/4 times, only to be given full tests later and not get close. If you have created a buzz with a phony number to get publicity, thats all that matters.


And I don't think the Durango looks that nice anywho. The Jeep looks better.

 

I would avoid the Outbacks if mileage is your thing. We have one in the extended family. It gets about 22mpg... on the highway. BTW, which test got an Equinox down to 18mpg? Was it a version with the thirstier engine option?

I have seen 22mpg on an extended highway trip in a Tahoe. I was doing a little over 70mph (gps verified) the whole time.

 

Are you talking new V6 outbacks for the milage? I get 25-26 EVERY tank without fail with my 2.5 turbo, but I have a Cobb stage 1 tune on it. My best tank was 28. That is mixed driving. If something like a Tahoe gets 18 normally in mixed, I am using one third less gas. It's not a money thing, I just don't like to waste it if I don't have to.

C&D got 18 in the Equinox, and so did one other mag (can't remember which) I think Auto Blog Green got 22 on a test trying to drive it as sedately as possible, so Truth About Cars did an editorial piece acusing GM of lying about the numbers.

I like the Equinox but if you can't routinely get 25 in a crossover that small with a V6 in it (which is rated worse than the four) they need to send the engineers back to the drawing board. Its heavier than anything in its class, but that is only part of the excuse. RAV's can get 26 easy with the six on the highway.

For me high twenties is the bare minimum for a car I have to do daily duty in. I don't see why 30 in a small SUV is not attainable with technology.

 

The new Outback is a great car. My wife wants one.

 

[QUOTE=vader1,Jul 23 2010, 06:47 AM] Are you talking new V6 outbacks for the milage?