Welcome to this week’s installment of Future Curbside Classics, where we take a critical look at cars from the past decade that will be rare or intriguing sightings by the curbside in ten years’ time. This week we have: a truck with an innovative idea that went absolutely nowhere; another truck that could get places fast but not very efficiently; an attractive crossover roughly as popular as toxic waste; and another obscure rebadge.
GMC Envoy XUV
Resurrecting a 40-year old idea
The GMT-360 platform is one that keeps reappearing in this Future Curbside Classics series. After all, six different marques received a version of it, including FCC repeat offenders Isuzu and Saab. There were outrageous V8 performance editions of the GMT-360, such as the 9-7X Aero and TrailBlazer SS, and short-lived near-luxury variants like the Bravada and Rainier. One of the most obscure permutations of the platform, though, came in the form of the GMC Envoy XUV: absolutely the best truck of the past decade if you are transporting a grandfather clock.
found this conveniently right across from my building
How oddly specific, you must be saying. The 2000s were a highly experimental decade for GM as the megalith company was slowly getting its mojo back after many years of poor management of its passenger car lineup. This new, albeit pre-bankruptcy GM was more adventurous, and was willing to invest in sometimes exciting niche models. The Chevrolet Avalanche was one such vehicle, featuring the cabin of a Chevy Tahoe Suburban but with a moderately sized pickup bed and a so-called MidGate. This new feature allowed the user to stow away the panel separating bed from cabin, so that bulkier items could be stowed partially in the backseat area. It was a clever idea so GM applied a similar concept to the 2004 Envoy XUV.
The XUV was effectively a GMC Envoy XL – technically a GMT-370, if you want to be specific – with the third-row seats removed, and a 32×32 inch retractable rear roof added. This roof slid forward so that the cargo bay behind the second-row was exposed to the sun. A semi-glass MidGate could be raised to separate the cabin from the “bed”, and the all-weather cargo area featured a QuickDrain system that allowed it to be sprayed out with a hose. An XUV driver could even lower the MidGate and fold down the second row for a larger cargo area. The tailgate was also nifty: it could either be opened sideways or dropped down, and the rear glass could be retracted into the tailgate.
photo courtesy of Autobestpics.com
The idea of a wagon-type vehicle with a retractable roof wasn’t new, as Studebaker’s Wagonaire of the 1960s also had such a feature. Where the Wagonaire’s roof was known for leaking, XUV owners have expressed dissatisfaction with the roof sensors being far too finicky. For safety reasons, the roof panel can’t move if there is an obstruction in the way, but many Envoy XUVs play fast and loose with the definition of “obstruction”.
a regular GMC Envoy XL
Maybe it was the complexity and relatively small size of this rear cargo area that turned buyers off of the XUV. GM projected 30,000 sales for the XUV’s inaugural year in 2004, but only 12,000 units were sold (one source claimed there were 112,000 sales projected, but that seems ludicrously high for a niche model). Evidently, GM didn’t see those numbers being turned around, and the truncated 2005 model year saw even fewer sold, with just under 4,000 units. To put it into perspective, GMC shifted over 134,000 Envoys in 2004, including the XUV, and over 100,000 in 2005. Suppliers were blindsided by such a speedy discontinuation; Inalfa Sunroof, for example, had specifically set up a $5 million dollar production facility in Oklahoma, where the GMT-370s were made. One dealer interviewed by the Oklahoman said every person to whom he sold an XUV was very happy with it. However, the XUV’s intended purpose was very specific. After all, a normal Envoy XL offered slightly more cargo volume (107 cubic feet vs 95, with the rear seats folded flat). Did it have a hose-down floor or a trick retractable roof? No, so if you were a landscaper or someone hauling dirty things (or grandfather clocks), the XUV would be the better pick. But for most people, an XL would be just fine and would have fewer moving, breakable parts. Fortunately for the dirt-haulers, a base XUV listed for around $32k, only $3k more than a base SWB Envoy.
Setting aside the XUV’s unique features for a moment, its buyers still received all the basic virtues and issues of the Envoy and Envoy XL: a smooth and powerful I-6 (275hp and 275 lb ft, comparable to a V8 Explorer!); an available V8 with even more power and torque; a smooth ride, but floaty handling; and a nicer interior than the TrailBlazer. All in all, the XUV was a solid truck with some trick features but it was too niche to have widespread appeal.
Chevrolet Colorado & GMC Canyon V8
Muscle truck
If the moderately clever Envoy XUV struck you as being a pointless addition to GM’s truck lineup, then the Colorado/Canyon 5.3 V8 can’t be viewed in a much more positive light. After all, the Envoy XUV had a very specific niche: people who wanted SUV comfort but who didn’t own a pickup to carry dirty/tall things. The Colorado and Canyon V8 appeals to a smaller niche: people who don’t want a full-size truck, but want the power and don’t care about the fuel economy.
photo courtesy of Sfoskett
Huh? The 2009-12 Colorado/Canyon V8 actually had the same highway gas mileage and worse city mileage than the larger, heavier Silverado/Sierra V8 with the same engine. Not to mention, the larger trucks had been completely overhauled for 2007 and looked very sharp inside and out. The 2004-vintage Colorado came with one of the drabbest, cheapest interiors on the market, replete with uncomfortable seats and considerably less room than the Silverado. If you were hoping for some kind of competitive advantage over the bigger Silverado, you were out of luck.
Alternative #1
If you were simply craving Chevy V8 performance in an affordable package that wasn’t a full-size truck, you needn’t have settled for the Colorado/Canyon V8. The long, dark winter at Chevrolet had ended, and you could once again buy a Camaro in 2010. This time, the base V6 pumped out 300hp and hit 0-60 in 6 seconds; the 400hp V8 did it in 5 seconds. And that wild-looking pony car even got better gas mileage!
Alternative #2
If you were after a non-full-size pickup with the most towing capacity, the Dodge/Ram Dakota V8 shaded the Colorado/Canyon V8 by 1,200 pounds when properly equipped. The Dakota also boasted ever so slightly more power and torque, a marginally nicer interior (at least visually), and for a little while at least, an available stickshift with the V8.
Alternative #3
So maybe the hypothetical Colorado/Canyon V8 buyer really liked the basic truck and just wanted more oomph. The 2.9 I-4 and 3.7 I-5 were often criticized for lacking low-end torque, but the basic handling of the truck was seen as decent. Unfortunately, the rest of the truck just felt cheap and lacked the refinement of a Tacoma. The Colorado/Canyon V8 sure filled a niche, but the lack of broken-out V8 production figures means we are left to wonder whether that niche was worth filling.
Infiniti EX/QX50
Unloved but not unloveable
Next up, we have a compact luxury crossover – you’ll recognize that as being one of the industry’s fastest-growing segments – that sells in Acura RL volumes.
Ok, so the Infiniti EX’s sales aren’t quite that low, but relatively speaking they are just as bad for Infiniti. After all, the RL (now RLX) is a flagship sedan for Acura, occupying the fairly low-volume segment of full-size FWD luxury sedans. It’s a small segment without a lot of sales. The compact luxury crossover market? It’s a market that did 211,433 sales in 2013, up almost 30% from 2012 (thank you, Good Car Bad Car, for your excellently organized sales data). Cars like the Acura RDX and Audi Q5 have increased their sales every year since they launched. And what of the Infiniti EX? Its sales fell almost 40% from 2012, echoing a similar drop the year before. Its bigger brother, the FX (QX70), is more expensive and has seen some big drops, too, but still sells almost double the volume. Let’s take a look at why the EX – now known as the QX50 – is a complete sales dud.
photos courtesy David Villarreal Fernández
A lot of crossovers these days are rather unpleasant to look at (although this doesn’t stop some from selling very well, like the BMW X6) but as far as crossovers go, the EX is actually rather pretty. It has some strong visual similarities to its G37 platform mate, but avoids the usual crossover visual bloat and is actually quite pert in person, eschewing the trend of more recent Infiniti models to be overwrought. The EX has clean, flowing lines and a long, sedan-like hood but a decently high ride height, so it doesn’t quite fall into the Ford Freestyle/BMW X1 trap of just looking like a regular wagon.
So it looks attractive and convincing outside. The interior is where the EX is less convincing. Up front, there is an attractive dash and high-quality materials, especially with available option packages that allow for more leather and real wood. There’s a fairly easy-to-use infotainment system as well, but also plenty of actual, real buttons on the dash. The EX also boasts an innovative rear parking assist that uses four cameras on the car to produce a 360 degree view to help you negotiate a spot. But the EX brings up the rear in its category – pun intended – in cargo volume and back seat space. In short, there’s not much of either. The EX is 4.7 inches shorter and rides a wheelbase two inches shorter than the G, and it’s plainly apparent upon sitting in the back where those inches were taken out. Tellingly, there’s actually less rear legroom than in the G37 coupe. The EX is down eight cubic feet on interior volume vis-à-vis the sedan. Behind the cramped rear quarters, there’s only 18.6 cubic feet of space. So the EX is barely more versatile than the G, if at all.
But crossover buyers aren’t always looking for the most versatile option. Often, they simply appreciate the perceived style of a crossover and the higher ride height. Where the EX gains ground as a convincing compact luxury crossover offering is in how it drives. Utilizing the front suspension componentry of the G but the rear set-up of an FX, the EX boasts both a fairly compliant ride – some critics argue one better than the G – with sports sedan handling. The EX also only weighs around 200 pounds more than a G sedan, and since last year has been available with the same 3.7 V6 with 320hp and 270 lb ft, mated to a seven-speed auto; the previous powertrain was the award-winning VQ35 with 297hp and 262 lb ft, albeit with only a five-speed auto. Critics have praised the quick turn-in and maneuverability of the EX; it has a 52/48 weight distribution that helps it handle comparably to many sport sedans.
photo courtesy of Mujitra
Maybe, though, the critics are right. Maybe the EX has sold slowly and continued to lose sales because people think it looks like a hatchback, and crossover buyers prefer something more butch, like the upright GLK. Or maybe crossover buyers are just really turned off by the surprising lack of versatility. The G-replacing Q50 just launched so I’m sure a new QX50 isn’t far away, as Infiniti will want to field something less sales-resistant in this hot segment. They’ll also be wise to heavily advertise the new names in the Infiniti lineup. I’m not convinced Infiniti’s new Q-name branding strategy is the horrible adventure in rebranding everyone is making it out to be as using a number system makes more sense in some ways: there’s no confusion as to which car is further up in the hierarchy (e.g., Lincoln’s MKS vs MKZ and Cadillac’s CTS vs XTS); and there’s less priority placed on the engine, which is especially pointless these days when BMW and Mercedes label their cars 535 and E350 when neither are powered by a 3.5 engine. However, it does confuse in that a Q60 and a QX60 are completely different vehicles and don’t even occupy a similar place in Infiniti’s separate passenger car and crossover lineups. One is (or rather, will be) a sport coupe variant of the Q50; the other is a seven-seat, FWD Nissan-based crossover. Fortunately, the EX is now the QX50; this clearly ties it to the Q50, much like how the EX is known as the Nissan Skyline Crossover in Japan. I sincerely hope the next QX50 finds a way to increase sales volume without throwing away its sports-sedan dynamics, but given Infiniti’s newest crossover is a reskinned Nissan Pathfinder with FWD-biased AWD and a CVT, it’s entirely possible this QX50 could be a developmental dead end.
Obscure Rebadges – Part 4
Mazda Tribute
Mazda was no stranger to receiving product from former corporate parent Ford, although arguably Ford got the better end of that stick. The Mazda Navajo was a rebadged Ford Explorer sold by Mazda during the early 1990s, but Ford only let them have the two-door; not a great agreement when four-door SUV sales were taking off like a rocket. This time around, Mazda’s Ford SUV was a four-door; the 2001 Tribute was smartly-styled, and came with a standard 2.0 four cylinder with 130hp and 135 lb ft of torque and five-speed manual or four-speed auto – not an ideal powertrain option for a 3200lb car – or the more powerful Duratec V6 from Ford, with a four-speed automatic and a class-leading 200hp and 200 ft lbs. 2005 brought a new base engine with 20 more horsepower and pound feet of torque, but the thirsty V6 was unchanged. Of course, the competitive Tribute didn’t sell anywhere near the volumes of the Ford Escape. No one expected it to do so, with Mazda’s much smaller dealer network and advertising budget. Ford anticipated its variant would sell four times as many units as the Tribute, and that is effectively what happened until around 2007 when sales fell by half from the year before.
As with the Escape, the Tribute received a sharp makeover in 2008 but it was looking more out of place in the swoopy Mazda lineup. The boxy, upright Tribute had a neater front fascia and inside received the same higher-quality but button-heavy interior as the Escape. However, this arrangement also allowed Mazda to sell their first hybrid. Despite these changes and the following year’s improved gas mileage and more powerful engines (a new base 2.5 again had an extra 20hp and 20 lb-ft; the V6 added a standard six-speed auto and 40hp and 33 lb-ft), Tribute sales continued their decline. Perhaps it was a lack of marketing support, the sexy new CX-7 across the showroom, the Tribute’s 2001-vintage design, or a combination of all three, but 2009 saw sales fall under the 10k mark and continuing to shrink. Meanwhile, Escape sales actually increased despite heavy competition, and by this point it was the rebadged Mercury Mariner selling four times as many units as the Tribute. The Tribute Hybrid was axed after 2009 (I wonder what’s rarer, it or the Chrysler Aspen Hybrid?), and the Tribute itself limped on until 2011. The modern, Mazda-engineered and designed CX-5 eventually filled its place, and is earning plaudits left and right. It’s easy as a big company to have an old model in your lineup because you can still milk the cash cow of long-ago amortized tooling by selling to fleets, which I’m sure Ford did heavily with the old Escape towards the end. As a smaller company like Mazda though, you have to keep it fresh. The Tribute, despite some solid mechanical and visual improvements, was simply getting on in years and people switched off.
So, what do you CC-ers think? Was the Envoy XUV as terrible an idea as its sales and manufacturer support suggest? Would you have picked a Colorado V8 over a similarly-priced Silverado V8? Why won’t people buy the Infiniti QX50? Did you ever see a Tribute that wasn’t painted in that sandstone beige color? Share your thoughts in the comments!
Another good rare vehicle to have brought up in this post (since you were discussing V8 trucks and brought up the Dakota) would be the Dakota based Mitsubishi Raider. That is an obscure rebadge. I wonder what the production of V8 Raiders was?
The V8 Canyon/Colorado is an odd duck. It seems like a “let’s prove it can be done” engineering exercise rather than something done seriously.
I think the V8 Canyon/Colorado was more like “lets offer it since we already put it in the H3”. It was probably more of a no brainer since the H3 is virtually a Colorado wagon (I think built in the same plant in LA). Its a real shame they didn’t offer the Colorado/Canyon with the V8, regular cab, short bed and all of the locking diff’s and off-road stuff they put on the H3. That would have been a fun little rig for the 200 people that would have bought it.
The ’96 Chevy S-10 (bought used in ’02) was the vehicle that brought me back into the Chevrolet fold after the POS disaster that was my ’79 Monza Kammback. After eight years of excellent, reliable, comfortable service I was ready to trade to something newer. Of course, my first look was a Chevrolet Colorado.
I immediately ran screaming to the ’03 Ford Ranger I currently own. It’s not quite as nice as the S-10, but compared to that Colorado . . . . . . . . .
Camaro beaut
that infiniti-thing has got to be the ugliest vehicle ever produced.
+1, right up there with the Murano convertible.
Nissan had some handsome cars in the late 80’s early 90’s, but it was all down hill form there.
Definitely.
I wonder what happened… Other than the original ‘Z’, I found Nissans to be unattractive cars across the board until the okay ’89-’94 Maxima restyle and the very sharp Z32 came out. I reluctantly admit the Z32s were beautiful cars… the abomination that replaced it messes with my head.
Pretty on the left. Pretty Gross on the right.
Nissans current crop is awful doesn’t matter if they have infiniti badges or not.
It certainly ranks up there, but pretty much all the “crossovers” are fugly.
Until I read this article, I hadn’t realized that the Mazda Tribute was basically a Ford Escape. Lo, and behold, it is. I bought a 2012 Escape Limited because (the 2013 and 2014 models are homely, IMO) the wife wanted something truck-like, we live in town and thus do not need something akin to the old V8 Explorer anymore, and see above about fugliness of the crossover. Nice little rig for what it is.
You are a perfect example of how “badge engineering” in the truest form of the phrase, works with the general public.
The Escape you purchased is much better looking than the new global design, at least in my eyes
I think your comment needs to be moved over to the Noville fire storm next door.
Meaning, I don’t much care for Mazda or Nissan or any of them much in general, so I didn’t even notice. Honestly, I don’t think I’ve seen one of them in the flesh around here.
I do too, which is partly why I bought it. Had a same type Mariner been on the lot at the time I might have looked a little harder, though I think I did good. These look more like SUVs, and more like the old Explorer which it replaced which I like the lines of. The new ones look like everyone else’s ugly crossovers-no thanks.
The Mazda is the original the Ford is a rebadge
WRONG! But thanks for playing.
Really you might like to do some research on that
The Pontiac Aztek says hello.
That Envoy XUV may be my favorite GM vehicle of its decade, but maybe that’s just my Studebaker love talking. I think I need one of those. Or maybe Jim Klein does.
As for the tribute, these probably sold better than they should have because they were the only thing in the Mazda showroom without the creepy clown face grin. Another obscure rebadge is the Mitsu version of the Dodge Dakota pickup.
LOL on the creepy clown-faced grin. I can’t get over how clownlike those front ends are with their big gummy rubbery toothless grin.
I agree that those Raiders are kind of intriguing vehicles. I kind of like them in the same way I like AMC Pacers.
I briefly touched on the Raider in Part 1:
https://www.curbsideclassic.com/uncategorized/future-curbside-classics-the-cars-well-be-photographing-later-part-1/
Hey, my car is a future CC! The last-gen Ford Escape/Mazda Tribute/Mercury Mariner were the last of what I call the First Wave of Crossovers: crossovers with boxy SUV styling and actual visibility out the rear and sides. Think of the first-gen Honda CR-V and Toyota RAV4, and how they pretty much looked like traditional BOF SUVs, except they were FWD. When Ford switched to the EU Kuga platform, that was it for “good” crossovers.
Although I will say, we rented a new Escape on our recent trip to San Diego, and I was mildly impressed with how much rear visibility it actually had. My father, on the other hand, being more than a little irritated with CA traffic, was more than a little unhappy when we went to refuel and I reminded him that, being a European car, this new Escape had the fuel door on the right side. I’m pretty sure the last vehicle he owned that could be filled from the right was his Kawasaki 440. Or maybe…where was the fuel door on a ’76 Cordoba?
Now, a Ford Kuga from Europe would be a lot more fun. Diesel and six-speed? Yes please!
Really you’d like a Peugeot powered car from Ford after all that’s said about French engineering here.
Not necessarily, but I’d much prefer a manual/diesel option if I _had_ to drive the Kugescape.
GMC Envoy XUV:
I remember the big deal the GMC made when the Envoy XUV came out. The idea was just so ridiculous from the start. Not to mention that it added even more hard plastic to the already cheapo-depot interior.
Infiniti EX/QX50:
As you mentioned, it has a very nice and high-quality interior. I don’t think its size or styling is the biggest obstacle in its sales numbers. Most people who purchase small luxury cars don’t care about rear seat room. It’s biggest obstacle is its price. For a car smaller than the G, its base price is more, and quickly climbs with options.
Check all the options (including ones that most come equipped with anyway like AWD and Premium Package) and it will climb to over $50,000. When my mom was looking at compact luxury crossovers for her new car last year, I recall that the then EX had one of the worst residual values in its class.
Bob Lutz badly, badly wanted to kill the XUV when he came aboard in charge of product development in the early 2000s, but the product people showed him the project was too far along to really stop dead in its tracks.
During the heartbeat I was selling cars (don’t ask) a salesman received a $1000 “spiff” for finally unloading the regrettable, lamentable single XUV in stock.
If you’ll indulge me one quibble: the Avalanche I believe is based on the Suburban chassis, complete with rear coil springs in 1500 guise.
In Canada I’ve seen more than a few Mazda Tributes, particularly the 2000(?)-2005 generation. Never saw a newer model than that.
The less said about the remainder, the better.
Yes, the Avalanche is based on the Suburban. Thus the narrow box being attached to the cab and the need for the sail panels. Having coils in the rear, it rides nicer than Silverados. It’s also what makes the midgate possible.
I really like the Avalanches, I just wish they could have made the box wider. It makes a huge difference having that space around the wheel wells available in a pickup.
The Camaro’s a rare sight in the UK,Mustangs have outsold them hugely
I see more Mustangs but then we have the fast Holdens which are better than that Camaro version.
The Vauxhall Monaro/VXR8 has quite a following here too.I will have a Monaro one day
All of the cars pictured above are butt-ugly and I wouldn’t own any one of them!
…it doesn’t quite fall into the Ford Freestyle/BMW X1 trap of just looking like a regular wagon.
As far as I am concerned, “looking like a regular wagon” is a good thing. I don’t need a ladder to get into my Taurus X, though I do need a ladder to wax the roof. It also has decent visibility to the rear. I’d like it even better if it was 10% smaller.
The T-Rex is bound for CC glory some day, due to rarity. First the Edge, which looks taller, came out, then the Flex, which looks longer, slicing the T-X’s share three ways. The T-X died early calendar year 09, for a paltry year and a half run. Wiki reports calendar 07 sales of 18,345, calendar 08 of 23,112, and the truncated 09 year sales of 6,106
I’ll be looking at the Bimmer X1 at the auto show next week, because it’s smaller than my T-X, and “looks like a regular wagon”…but I’ll probably still end up with a Jetta, because it *is* a “regular wagon”
You won’t find any complaints from me on the Taurus X. I thought they were handsome and nicely improved on the underpowered Freestyle. I was struck by something the other day though, when I saw a parked Freestyle… You don’t realize how big it is until you see it next to something!
Similarly, I love the Flex!
You don’t realize how big it is until you see it next to something!
Yes. They are so well proportioned that they don’t *look* huge, which is maybe why they were shunned by a size obsessed clientele. The Edge isn’t significantly taller than the T-X, but it looks bigger because the beltline is higher and it’s more than a foot shorter. The current Explorer looks huge, because of the styling, but it’s actually 3″ shorter than the T-X, and 3″ taller. The Ranger was a reasonable looking truck when it first came out. Ford made it look bigger over the years by jacking it up higher on it’s suspension and putting bigger wheels on it.
The T-X doesn’t even look big when you stand in front of it. The hood seems normal height. It’s just when you go around back, where it’s 5 1/2 feet high that you start to realise how big it is. I took that pic of mine last fall, after I spent two days washing and waxing it. I *really* know how big it is!
The clever disguising of the Freestyle/Taurus X’s raised roofline to allow more headroom for the rear raised “stadium seats” can be attributed, much like the Trailblazer EXT and Envoy XL, to the addition of a roof rack.
The concept car had a removeable rear roof that made for a mini-SUT in the vein of the Subaru Baja. But it also had a backlight/deck cover attachment to close it off. Kind of like the late 80s Nissan Pulsars. Would it have ‘caught on’? No probably not, but it would have made another ho-hum awd wagon into something INTERESTING, at least.
Canyon/Colorado: Isuzu pick-up with SBC? Count me in.
As for the Infiniti, it didn’t get the attention it deserved and the G line-up hasn’t gotten the credit it deserves. Their current effort to soften their cars and rename them has “disaster” written all over it. The moment people got somewhat familiar with the model names, they were dispensed with.
Isuzu is not involved in the new Colorado and actually produces the Imax as a standalone company now
What if the XUV Envoy was turned into the only Envoy you could buy?
You forgot to mentioned the sealed beam aka work truck grill Chevy Colorado.
http://i48.photobucket.com/albums/f212/LongBow986/S7000456edit.jpg
That Chevy Silverado is kind of rare and most of the ones I see assembled like that do not have the Z71 Package. In fact, most Z71 Packages are applied to differently equipped Silverados.
The current Camaro is too cramped even for someone just under 6 feet and I would never buy one.
I do not want to spend any time commenting on the Infiniti that is how much apathy I have.
Guess you could say that is not a real Ford, but a Tribute.
A friend of mine used to have an EX. It’s a really top-notch vehicle, as long you don’t need a lot of space. If not for the cramped back, I would strongly prefer it to the G37. I think it could’ve been a big hit if not for the blobby style–think of the Range Rover Evoque.
You missed any muscle trucks by miles you need to go downunder to find anything with a load bed and real performance the two fastest pickups on the planet are in Aussie and SouthAfrica one Holden and one Chevrolet YOU cant buy
I used to think I wanted an XUV, until I saw them in person. Too big on the outside, too small on the inside, too expensive.
That roof opening was too small to be of much use. You can’t stand there and have enough space to bend down and manuever cargo around. You can’t fit a motorcycle or 4-wheeler back there. Maybe a small refrigerator or tree would fit. But again, manuevering anything around that cargo area that is large enough to need an open roof for in the first place would be a real pain. The Avalanche is bad enough with its narrow box and sail panels. Same with the Ridgeline. Full walls and even smaller? No thanks.
Neat idea, but the usefulness was way too limited. Like any niche product I’m sure it was perfect for some people, but most people who actually use a pickup as a pickup would have never considered this thing.
I’ve said before that the EX would make a great used car for Stephanie. You could get a killer deal on a used one, it looks good, is fast and handles great. As empty nesters Paul and Steph wouldn’t need to worry about the tight rear seat and when needed all of that can be folded down to create space for bulk.
I knew someone who wanted a Mazda B series pickup, when they were Ranger rebadge jobs. When I pointed this out, he retorted, “Well Mazda dealers have better service anyway!” Some just want a better brand no matter what.
To be fair, dealer reputation is a big selling point and can vary greatly. I’m not going to buy a car from a bunch of crooks just to get the brand I want. Especially if I live in an area that doesn’t have any alternatives for warranty repair.
I gotta tell you, the Colorado is one of the best looking trucks GM has put out since the ‘bullnose’ ’67-’72 C/K series and Blazer. I really like the crewcab with ‘supershorty’ bed…perfectly proportioned. But the build quality and reliability are apparently abysmal on these. On the other hand, the last few Dakotas with that cleaned up grille is the best looking version since the original ‘mini Ram’ look that started in ’97. The middle update….not so much. The Raider looks like a 4th Gen Eclipse bloated into a truck.
Here is the XUV we got in Australia – the 2004-05 HSV Avalanche XUV which was a $68k tuned version of the Cross8 dual cab awd pickup. The 340-unit production number is actually a few more than its SUV brother!
Re the Colorado V8 – how is it possible for a pickup hundreds of pounds lighter (500-1000 range surely?) to get worse fuel mileage? A 4sp vs 6sp auto? And is it reflected in the real world? The Colorado was sold here with a 4cy or V6, it is remarkable that they run completely different drivelines in the same vehicle on different continents.
I don’t think the sales gap between the Ford & Mazda Escape/Tribute twins was as large here, they did ok as one of the few V6 small crossovers initially, then the focus shifted to the entry level 4cyl versions as the design aged and newer V6 competition arrived.
They only recently started selling Infinitis here, and not this model. I don’t think I’ve even seen grey imports, even though there are a heap of Nissan Skylines aka G35/37 sedans and coupes.
On the XUV: I was doing some work in OKC when the XUV was first being produced. One of the women I was working with husband worked at the GM plant making them and she had one. She said that GM was losing money as the first batch of the cars all had leaky roofs and even after they shipped the cars and thought they were fixed, all the cars had leaky roofs. I’d be interested if anyone has detailed knowledge of warranty claims or the long term ability of these roofs to keep water out.
Mine don’t leak but really love it if it wasn’t so shitty on gas gotta be the worst vehicle on gas that I ever owned time to trade or sell
If the requisite to be a CC is a minimum age of 10 years, I currently own one who is owed it’s due, and used to own (and am desperately trying to own again) another.
Behold the current:
1999 Chrysler Town & Country Limited (the van in my avatar).
I wuv’s me mommy-mobile, aside, of course, from it’s appetite for alt belts, and that whole issue with the rear heater hose.
Annndddd here is the ghost of CC past I refer to;
1997 Chrysler Sebring JXi
I desperately want a ’99-ish limited (before the sack o’ crap 2.7). Unfortunately, funds do not allow. I paid $250 for this one, tho it had a burnt valve (it had nearly 300k miles and aside from a little smoke it ran like a champ, I never shoulda gotten rid of it). That is my nephew in the picture. He’s my little sidekick and insisted on being in the photo, I think he loved that car more than I did and was genuinely mad when I got rid of it.