After a short break, it’s time to look again at cars of the new millennium that will attract the attention of the Curbside Classic Cohort. We come to this site often because we are tired of reading articles and looking at pictures of shiny red trailer-queen 1964 Mustangs. Many of us will walk a couple of extra blocks or drive a little out of our way because we spotted a car that is becoming increasingly rare with time, or perhaps always was. I propose the following cars will be attracting our gaze when we spot them in 10-15 years’ time, although we may not have the fondest of memories for them.
Dodge Nitro
Ran out of gas
Sometimes you have to wonder why some automakers completely avoid hot segments until years later. Dodge was extremely late to the small SUV party, and like a guest who didn’t read the invitation, came wearing entirely the wrong outfit, and carrying the wrong gift.
Chrysler had plenty of time to do recon on what small SUV buyers really wanted. Previously, the only small SUVs you could buy were more agricultural trucklets like the Geo/Chevrolet Tracker, which were better suited to off-road driving than the grocery store run. Along came Toyota’s Corolla-based RAV4 in 1996, with butch styling but refined, car-like dynamics. Honda arrived shortly after with the Civic-based CR-V in 1997, and then Ford in 2000 with the Mazda 626-derived Escape, which offered a V6. Those three entrants established dominance in the segment, and it was plain to see what was so popular. To succeed, an automaker just needed something pleasant enough to drive, preferably based on an existing front-wheel-drive car platform, but with the command seating position and tough looks of a more conventional SUV. Easy.
top: Dodge Nitro, bottom: Jeep Liberty
Tell that to Chrysler, because when the Dodge Nitro arrived in 2007, it couldn’t have been further from that formula. The Nitro rode on the same unibody platform as the 2008 Jeep Liberty, with a live axle rear suspension and standard rear-wheel-drive, a combination far more truck-like than that of its competitors. To differentiate the Nitro from the Liberty, Dodge gave it an aggressive front fascia and bold crosshair grille, although the exaggerated flares over the wheel arches cast my mind towards tractors and 1930s cars. The Nitro also had a high belt line and small glasshouse, similar to the Chrysler 300, but from behind the resemblance to the Liberty was very apparent. Like it or loathe it, though, the Nitro sure stood out, especially in R/T trim with 20-inch chrome wheels and body-colored bumpers.
The Nitro was marketed as a compact, urban-dwelling SUV. Of course, where the RAV4 and CR-V were doing duty with 2.0-2.4 four-cylinder engines, Nitro came with some heavier artillery. There were no four-cylinder engines (except the 2.8 VM Motori diesel four available in Europe and Australia), with the base engine being the Jeep Liberty’s 3.7 PowerTech V6. In grand 2000s Chrysler tradition, it was low on power compared to rivals: just 210 horsepower and 235 ft-lbs of torque, hauling almost 4000lbs of curb weight. Contrast that with the RAV4 V6, new for 2006, which had 269hp and 246 ft-lbs, hauling 300lbs less. Interestingly, for the first couple of years, the 3.7 came with a six-speed manual transmission as standard. The automatic was an old-tech four-speed unit, however you got a five-speed with manual shift control if you ponied up for the 4.0 six. The bigger engine was more in line with the RAV4 V6, with 260hp and 265 ft-lbs. The Nitro may have been down on power against the Toyota, but it made up for it by being able to tow 5000lbs.
Of course, while the Nitro could tow like a conventional SUV, it couldn’t go off-road like one. In their efforts to differentiate the Nitro from its Liberty cousin, Dodge gave it a more street-tough look. This meant the Nitro rode lower to the ground, and was also longer and wider. These tweaks afforded the Nitro a roomier cabin and better ride than the Liberty, but at the expense of off-road ability. Where the cousins were lineball, however, was in their cheap, plasticky interiors. The Nitro’s aluminum-look trim and straightforward dash layout looked pleasing from a distance, but like all Mopar interiors from the dreary DaimlerChrysler days, the quality was most definitely not there. I remember visiting a Chrysler-Dodge-Jeep dealer and checking out the lineup at the time, and the interiors gave me vivid flashbacks of my sister’s old first-generation Kia Rio. Now she drives a 2012 Journey with a fairly high-quality interior and the powerful Pentastar V6, so I know Chrysler is back on track.
photo courtesy Mattinbgn (and no, I’ve never seen a Police Nitro back home)
It seemed like Chrysler didn’t have a lot of faith in their concoction, because just two years later they released the not-quite-midsize Journey. Then, there was also the Caliber to consider. Dodge thought because small SUVs were so popular, they should make their compact car look like one. A novel idea, but whether because the idea was too out-of-the-box or the car just poorly executed (underpowered engines and a garbage interior), the Caliber actually saw sales halve from the numbers the cute, more conventional Neon had been moving.
The Nitro didn’t have an immediate predecessor to fall short of (the last compact Dodge SUV was the Mitsubishi-sourced Raider in 1990), and its 2007 sales tally was around 74k units. However, this was 20k shy of the Liberty, which was still the old-shape model. Despite a base price of roughly $2000 less than its Jeep cousin and the Nitro-exclusive 4.0, the Nitro could never muster more than half of the Liberty’s sales. While other problem Chrysler Corporation models like the Sebring and Compass received extensive revisions, or even simple tweaks like the 2010 Caliber’s improved interior, the Nitro soldiered on unchanged. In 2010, the Nitro’s model lineup was renamed, with try-hard trim levels including the Heat, Detonator and Shock. The Shock was the luxury trim, of course (this was around the time Dodge sold the hilariously-named Avenger Mainstreet for one model year). Ultimately, the Nitro sold on its bold looks and value proposition, because its car-based competitors were more pleasant on-road and had better gas mileage, and SUVs like its Liberty cousin and the Nissan Xterra vastly outperformed it off the beaten track.
Perhaps what was most mystifying about the Nitro was not its late arrival, but that it was chosen as one of a select group of Dodges to take the brand global. That expensive debacle is something that I will cover in more detail in a future article, but suffice it to say, the Nitro didn’t do too well in Europe. This SUV wasn’t a case of a day late, a dollar short: it was a decade late, and thousands of sales short.
Lincoln Aviator
Failure to soar
The 2003 Aviator is not being lumped into my usual Obscure Rebadges feature because, although its short model life and fairly low sales performance suggest “obscure”, it was not a “rebadge”. Instead, the Aviator was a nicely differentiated Ford Explorer – sharing only doors and roof with its lesser cousin – and was actually quite an impressive vehicle.
But how can a $39k Lincoln derived from a $27k Ford SUV be so impressive? After all, with Lincoln steering away from the path it tread with the dynamic LS, co-developed with Jaguar, the luxury marque has earned a lot of criticism over the past decade for not differentiating its models from the Fords they are based upon. The Aviator, though, was very different to the Explorer. Take the Explorer’s bland, utilitarian interior, for instance. No, seriously, take it. The Aviator had an entirely new interior, with a striking, symmetrical dash just like its big brother, the Navigator. There was a lot of satin-nickel trim, which was very much in vogue, but also a lot of real burled walnut and soft leather. The neatly laid-out dash featured an elegant analog clock, and the stereo was hidden behind a panel at the top of the dash. Outside, the styling was very much Navigator Junior, right down to the oversized taillights. The familial resemblance would make Audi proud.
Photo courtesy: Detect and Preserve
So far, though, it’s just cosmetic improvements. Is this just a case of lipstick on a pig? A shiny new body, but the same $27k truck underneath? Wrong. Pop the hood and you’ll find an engine shared not with the lesser Explorer or Mountaineer, but rather the Mustang Mach 1. A 4.6 V8 pumping out 302hp and 300 ft-lbs, the Aviator’s engine was actually more powerful than the Navigator’s larger 5.4 mill and endowed the smaller truck with best in-class acceleration. The Aviator hit 0-60 in 7.6 seconds, which was pretty damn impressive for a 4000lb truck in 2003. And when the road got twisty, the Aviator could actually keep up with it. Critics were impressed with how well it handled, not just compared with an Explorer but with its competitors, as well. The Explorer’s steering rack was cast off with its interior and engine, replaced with variable-assist, variable-ratio steering gear from ZF. A five-speed automatic was the only transmission, and earned universal praise for its quick upshifts. The suspension was all-independent. New shocks and springs completed the mechanical improvements. All in all, critics were surprised at how the Aviator not only rode smoothly and quietly, but how it could match the car-derived Acura MDX with a 0.74g figure on the skidpad. Gas mileage was nothing to write home about, with a 13/19 city/highway mpg score, but its truck-based rivals were little better in that regard.
So it handled well, looked good, had a quality interior and even had enough differentiation from the Explorer to justify the higher price tag. How did it sell? In its debut year, the Aviator shifted around 30k units, but that fell in 2004 to 23k. Finally, in 2005, the Aviator shifted a meager 15k. One of its key rivals, the Acura MDX, was selling almost 60k annually in this time period. The Lexus GX, which like the Aviator was based on a mainstream, mid-size truck platform, sold around 30k units annually in this time period, as did the Aviator’s bigger brother, the Navigator. For some reason, the Aviator just couldn’t get much love. Perhaps it was a lack of advertising that was to blame, or maybe people who entered the Lincoln showroom would just rather pony up the extra dough and get the slower, less dynamic, thirstier Navigator. The Aviator had a very short life at Lincoln, replaced by the car-like MKX. In the shape of things to come, the MKX was more similar to its Ford Edge donor, sharing more sheetmetal and mechanical components. This likely made it much more profitable for Ford, although the MKX wasn’t a sales success either. However, there was less of a sharp drop-off, and since launch, the MKX has sold consistently. It is frustrating to see Lincoln develop a solid entry, fail to support it and then discontinue it for something easier. The Aviator wasn’t a clean-sheet design like the LS, but it earned praise from critics and could perhaps have sold better with better marketing and advertising support.
Honda Crosstour/Accord Crosstour
We won’t reach an accord on this
Boy, I just know I’ll be in the minority on this one! The main criticism leveled against the Accord-derived Crosstour crossover is indisputably its styling. At first I found it challenging to look at but with time, I have come to appreciate it (especially after the 2012 facelift). I’m also coming to come right out and admit, hot on the heels of my admiration for the final Mitsubishi Eclipse (add link here), that I caught myself admiring a Honda Element SC the other day, I have always liked the 1996 Ford Taurus, I think the AMC Pacer is groovy and the Acura ZDX is rather sharp.
Now that I have completely lost your respect, let’s talk about the Accord Crosstour! First thing’s first, let’s just set aside all this crossover business. Yes, it has more ground clearance than the Accord from whence it came and yes, it’s offered with all-wheel-drive, but this is really just an Accord hatchback in platform shoes. Many enthusiasts long for hatchbacks and wagons, and they don’t realize that there are slightly more on the market than they think. The Ford Flex? It’s just a modern-day Country Squire. The Lincoln MKT? The same thing, in uglier skin (that we can agree on). The Toyota Venza is the only way Toyota can sell a Camry wagon to a notoriously wagon-averse public, and all they had to do was make it a bit taller and put the gearshift up on the dash. Are these cars as sexy as an Opel Insignia Sport Tourer? No, but they’re as close as we are going to get until The Next Big Thing. Wagons were in, then minivans, and then SUVs and then finally crossovers. Maybe hatches will be the car du jour in 5 years’ time?
Frankly, the Accord Crosstour (simply Crosstour after 2012) looks better to me than the just-superseded and super-sized Accord, with its bulging head lights and slab sides. The problem with the Crosstour, though, is it sacrifices potential substance for arguable style. With 25.7 cubic feet of space behind the rear seats (51.3 with the seats folded), it doesn’t really offer much utility compared to other crossovers like the Venza and only offers 10 more cubic feet than the Accord sedan. Then again, if you want utility, Honda can sell you a Pilot with available seven seats for $2k more. Of course, an Accord starts at around $22k, or a whole $5k less than a Crosstour. No matter how high you go up the Accord price ladder, though, you cannot add all-wheel-drive. That’s where the Crosstour would start to make sense, appealing to buyers in Canada, the Northeast and Midwest who want all-wheel-drive traction without driving something too bulky. However, the Crosstour is still based on the previous-generation Accord, and misses out on the handsome new Accord’s more desirable interior, as well as its base Earth Dreams four/CVT drivetrain. That drivetrain is good for 27/36mpg (30mpg combined), while the Crosstour’s base four comes with a five-speed auto and around 500lbs extra curb weight and thus gets 22/31mpg (25mpg combined). The poorer gas mileage can’t even be blamed on all-wheel-drive, which is available only on the V6 Crosstour. The V6 AWD Crosstour gets 22mpg combined, or 23mpg combined in FWD trim; contrast this with the V6 FWD Accord, with 26mpg combined.
The facelifted Crosstour. Photo courtesy: Tabercil
The Crosstour’s gas mileage figures are more flattering against the previous-generation Accord, but Honda has moved its own game forward. Now, it is time for them to bring the Crosstour to a new generation. That is, if they choose to. The Crosstour debuted to reasonable demand, with around 28k units sold. That dipped by 10k units the following year, before rising and falling once more. The Crosstour is selling well under half the volume of its chief rival, the similarly-priced Toyota Venza. Is the Crosstour the better car? It’s less practical, sure, but if you really wanted practicality you would arguably be looking at the Pilot or Highlander. The Crosstour has a better, more fun-to-drive donor car and thus is the superior driver’s car. If you are taken by its style, or you want an all-wheel-drive Accord, then the Crosstour is hardly a bad choice. The main problem for it now is the classy Accord sedan sitting next to it in the showroom.
But the Crosstour does look beautiful in brown.
What do you think of this lineup? Do you find the Dodge SUV Nitro-active, or do you want to drop it like radioactive waste? Is the Aviator a forgotten gem? Should I check myself into a psychiatric care facility for liking the Crosstour? Discuss in the comments below!
Do you need psychiatric care because you don’t want to see another red stang trailer queen? I’d say your head is screwed on right. That car has been reduced to an icon on repro posters in Hungry Jacks (Burger King) which is sort of shame because its a nice looking vehicle. Ubiquity unfortunately breeds fatigue and scorn.
I can’t see any of these generating much excitement; the closest I can think of is the Lincoln which, even though its the younger sibling, reminds me of Pee Diddly and J- Lo fleeing the scene.
Was thinking about the Acura ZDX, the crosstour’s dentally-challenged cousin.
When I checked the Crosstour, it was like, Honda recycling some old blue prints of GM’s Chevy Citation…. ^^;
And maybe we might take pictures of the Nissan NV200 althought it became the new cab of New York City and it’ll be sighted more often but the rebadged Chevrolet City Express will be more rare to see, we’ll see… 😉
While I never bothered to go test drive one, I liked the Nitro a lot. Those fender flares are most likely echoes of the WWII Dodge WC 11:
Recently, I was to travel from Allentown PA to Alexandria VA for business. There are two company cars available right now – the 2003 Chrysler Minivan and the 2007 Dodge Nitro. I prefer the Van – I had of equipment to take with me, and it’s easier to get equipment into and out of the fan. However, getting in to start it, the oil light came on, and didn’t go away. I then tried out the nitro, drove it around the block, and then immediately informed my boss that I was driving my own car, and collecting mileage. His response, and I’m quoting, was “Whats wrong with the Nitro? I just drove it, it’s perfectly fine. Actually drives great. Gas mileage sucks.” Immediately, I replied with “Poor sight lines, poor gas milage, too much rolling mass, terrible ergonomics, terrible turning, unresponsive steering, it wallows in lane changes…. A bad bad vehicle.”
So in other words, the Nitro not only *looks* like a WC 11, it drives like one, too…
The WC11 probably takes corners perfectly flat, which means it does one thing even better than the Nitro. 🙂
I too liked the Nitro’s looks when it came out and I did test drive one… then ran across the street and bought a Ford Escape
I don’t know how I missed the memo on the Aviator, but until recently, I remained one of the great mass of humanity that considered it as nothing more than an Explorer with a nose job. But lately, I have become a fan. Perhaps I should start watching for one.
Though I am predisposed to Hondas, the Crosstour is just too butt-ugly to drive. And this for a guy who offered money for a 63 Dodge.
I always figured the Aviator was a simple rebadge job on an Explorer too. I bet a lot of potential buyers felt the same way too, which may have been part of its problem.
So is the Mercury Mountaineer more closely related to the Explorer or the Aviator?
The Mountaineer is more closely related to the Explorer sharing the engine options and dash and the rest of the bones for the interior. Body wise they are almost equally different as the sheet metal in front of the doors, quarters, and rear bumper cover are unique for all of the vehicles. The tailgate is shared other than the applique on the glass between the Explorer and Mountaineer.
I would be surprised if Lincoln is around in 15 years. I cannot remember the last time I drove a new Lincoln or was in a Lincoln showroom,,,,maybe late 1980’s?
I went to the showroom in Jan 2013 to test drive a 2013 MKS. they had… one.
Lot’s of MKZ’s. I asked to see a better optioned model. Never got a callback. Clearly, their dealers are doing them no favors. I owned an ’01 Continental. Loved the car. Fit and finish were it’s main faults.
I expect that you’ll be writing about the MKS as a future Curbside Classic as well.
I was so disappointed in the Crosstour. Honda had been hinting at a wagon version of the Accord for years. We would be shopping for a larger vehicle to replace my wife’s Civic, so I was in the market for something like this. Then the Crosstour arrived. Overpriced Accord on stilts. No manual transmission available. The roof sloped down at theback, reminiscent of the BMW X6. No thanks.
Oddly, I’m a fan of the Crosstour’s appearance (this is the guy who had 2 Yugos and 3 Azteks). And even though it’s as big as an Impala now, it didn’t strike me as too large for my lifestyle. But the price tag sure did. Ouch!
I never really liked the Aviator. The overuse of the painted satin aluminum was too much. Combined with the wood trim, dash layout (with that odd retractable cover), and such. Plus, it scratched up very easily. The leather wasn’t very high quality either, wearing much too prematurely than it should in a car that expensive. Overall, I consider it a franken-car. Despite being a rebadged Edge, the MXK was a much better effort.
Have you driven both an Aviator and MKX? The Aviator is miles ahead of the MKX in NVH and driving dynamics and is much more of a gussied up Ford than the Aviator was compared to its lesser siblings.
I’ve often wondered if in the future we’ll view the Escalade the same way we look at the ’59 Cadillac. Both seems to be the pinnacle of the excesses of their respective eras
Of course that is a matter of taste, but personally I tend to think that 59′ Caddy will always be viewed as a more desirable classic, because its looks are truly majestic: the width, lenght, details. Compared to that the Escalade looks like a large blob rolling down the freeway on a set of huge wheels. It just doesn’t have the lenght and width emphasized by the fins and grills that the 59′ full-size has. But that is, as already mentioned, a question of taste. I’m a sedan guy down to the bone, the SUV’s rarely buy my attention.
Same here, in matters of style, I’m a sedan guy. I would say if you want class, go for the flagship big sedan or personal luxury like an Eldo. I’ve driven SUVs primarily, but have always considered them utilitarian more than anything else. Its basically a truck, and as a farm boy, trucks are for workin’.
To me, a ’59 Caddy is the pinnacle of 50s dripping chrome and fin opulence. A ’59 Biarritz is a rolling sculpture, dated 50s sculpture and overly iconized no doubt, but a real head turner.
An Escalade might be a pinnacle of excess, but more along the lines of a Ford Excursion-way too much vehicle for your average soccer mom with 2 rugrats taking trips to the supermarket. The Escalade is just GM’s version, but in fancier clothes.
If you enjoy the pseudo-donk “look” afforded by Caddy’s factory ghetto tank and think that its the pinnacle of not only excess but awesomeness , then I suppose the Escalade will be a classic. I personally think of Jersey Shore fist pumping and inner-city nonsense, classless and gaudy as hell but I suppose folks thought that way about the 59 Caddy as well.
I think a better question to ask is this: What cars WON”T we be photographing in years to come?
It doesn’t matter what make or model a car is, when so many years pass, ALL cars become rare no matter how ubiquitous they once were – even a Ford Tempo or Mercury Topaz!
Whether a certain model was/is loved or not, anything that becomes rare peaks one’s interest, just like in the TV series “Revolution” last year, when a remark was made that a character arrived in a Cutlass Ciera, that raised eyebrows, no matter that the electricity was turned off 12 years before!
Yeah, you guessed it: “Revolution” along with “The Blacklist” are my favorite shows…
The Crosstour looks like it was cribbed from the BMW X6. I respectfully disagree with you Mr. Stopford. There is no market for the Crosstour which shows. Those that want a full sized AWD Honda will spring for the Pilot. But I suspect most would make due with the smaller CRV which is quite roomy and very gas friendly.
These two cars and the Acura ZDX confuse me and I guess a lot of people. I think most people understand what a CUV is suppose to be. a cross between an SUV and a sedan. Probably high on the list of why we buy CUVs is Utility. Why did BMW and Honda decide to reduce the utility to negligible and think this was something people wanted?
I see a fair # of Cross tours here in Connecticut Mostly loyal Honda buyers who want AWD but not an SUV My guess is if honda offered the accord sedan with AWD most of these sales would go away.
Aviator – different but from what I heard was poorly assembled by the Hazelwood, MO Ford assembly plant. Which is a shame because the Aviator is my most desired of the Explorer, Mountaineer, Aviator triplets.
The Crosstour is the poor man’s Porsche Panamera from a design standpoint but I don’t like the Panamera either. 😉 From the demographics of people I see drving Crosstours it seems to be roughly the same demographic that drives the Toyota Venza (retirees in my area.)
The Nitro is unusual for being available for the first few years with not only the 6 speed manual but 4×4 at the same time. i see a few Nitros in the area but then our local Dodge dealer could usually sell anything for the right monthly payment.
I suspect that as they were making it for the export market anyway they figured why not offer it for the US.
A UPS employee owned a black R/T Nitro with tints near where I previously worked. Always saw him in the brown uniform. Thought it was just a mainly, mean looking truck. Granted I knew it wasn’t nearly as capable as Jeep but I thought it looked really good. Would give it the old googly eyes a lot…Anyways, I guess he leased it because I have since spotted him driving an all black Edge, which I kinda like too, but doesn’t give me the same tingle as the D. It was an odd truck though, not really an off-road worthy machine and not a great driver. Always thought they should have put the grand Cherokee drive train into it.
The Aviator was such an odd machine. No idea that it had a totally different engine than its sibling, but still it was still too expensive. The only time I really ever saw one was when a mailman slipped at our facility and someone showed up 20 minutes after the incident from USPS or the union to ask questions while parked at a bus stop.
Dodge Nitro-cool name but horrible execution.
The base 2014 Crosstour has slightly more power and slightly better mileage than the base 2014 Venza. The Crosstour is also just slightly less money.
I also kind of like the instrument panel on the Crosstour better. Has anyone driven both of them?
One little thing the original RAV was Corona/JDM Camry based NOT Corolla, cars you likely dont see but I have owned.
Concerning the Aviator it’s engine is closest to the one found in the Marauder, in fact in a few of the marketing pieces it even mentioned that it’s engine was the one used in the Marauder. They are not identical and won’t do a direct swap but you need to change less to put a Marauder engine in an Aviator or vice versa.
When I bought our Mountaineer I was quite happy that the Aviator was sharing the showroom. It put serious downward pressure on the Mountaineer’s sticker price. The Aviator’s base price was $39,999 while a topped out Mountaineer started the year at $39,995 though later in the year they added tire pressure monitoring for $125. Meanwhile over at the Ford dealer a similarly equipped Explorer topped out at $45K. The Mountaineer was not available with stability control though, and it was part of the Limited package on the Ford so you did get something more with the Explorer.
The price was part of the reason we decided to go with the Mercury but we felt it looked so much better than the generic look of the Ford. I would have loved to have an Aviator but I just couldn’t justify the extra $10K for one equipped similar to the Mountaineer. What I really wanted in the L-M showroom that year was the Marauder, but since we were looking for something to replace the minivan as the kid hauler that had to wait.
You’ve done a better job promoting the Crosstour and Aviator than Honda and Lincoln have!
I liked the Crosstour out of the box, but have to admit the Accord is more practical in just about every way. Makes you wonder if it would do better as another brand that doesn’t have the Accord competing 15 feet away in the showroom. Bumping it out to a wagon is likely a solution to improve sales – as you pointed out with the Venza.
Weak marketing is a Ford trait on anything that doesn’t sell itself. My thought was that the Aviator exterior looked way too much like an 8/10ths Navigator. When I see the rare Aviator I usually mistake it for a Navigator. The Navigator says buy me ’cause I’m big and boss – and it ate all the Aviator sales.
I can say from experience that Aviators were built far better than their Explountaneer counterparts. ’02 to ’05 E/Ms were basically steaming piles of fail, with issues ranging from failed transmission solenoid bodies to a hearty appetite for rear wheel bearings. I wouldn’t take one if you gave it to me. Aviators, on the other hand were quite reliable, about the only stupid problem they had is one shared with many 2 and 4 cam mod motors, a tendency to spit out a random spark plug now and then.
The basic transmission and wheel bearings are the same parts between the, though the bell housing pattern on the trans is different for the 4.0 and the programming is different for the different engines.
I’m a 25 year veteran Ford parts guy, by the time the Aviator came out the Explorer/Mountaineer bearing issue had been resolved. Ditto the solenoid body issues. Or just maybe Aviator drivers were easier on their vehicles?
I dunno, maybe I lucked out but I took a 2002 Eddie Bauer Explorer out to damn near 150K with nary a problem and got a pretty decent deal on a trade in.
Did I just hallucinate, or did my eyes actually see a sentence referring to the rav-4 as having ‘butch styling’?!?!?! I hope that was a thick slab of sarcasm, because that car is about as butch as Justin beiber.
Im a fan of the Nitro. Ive driven a couple Liberties and theyre a good all around truck based small SUV. Personally, I wouldn’t have a Nitro unless it was with the 4.0L but knowing the manual could be had with the smaller engine kind of irks me. I like the styling of this rig, it has an overall broadshouldered macho look and feel to it. More so than the 1st gen Liberty, even though the Jeep is more of an offroader with its better clearance and 2-spd transfer case. Granted, these wont ride as smooth or handle as well as car based cuvs but those are only good for car based duties. If you plan on towing even a small trailer or venturing off pavement, those little tinkertoys wont last 10 minutes. Ive seen what passes for ‘suspension components’ under a CR-V….the rear axle shafts look like 1/4 drive socket extensions.
Its just too bad that the Nitro didn’t get the Pentastar or even the Hemi.
Oh, and fyi, the Dodge M-80 concept heavily previewed the styling. That’s another rig that should’ve gotten the greenlight right to production.
I was hoping I wasn’t the only one that noticed that comment. A first gen RAV4 butch? LOL!!! It’s as pansy-ass effeminate turd of a motor vehicle as there has ever been… no man should be caught dead in one. I know I wouldn’t.
Maybe the meaning of “butch” in reference to a 1st Gen. RAV4 is in reference to it being something especially fitting for a plaid wearing lesbian to drive. Just a guess…
I seem to remember the Nitro coming with some type of germicidal fabric…or was the Sebring? Either way, the interiors in lower-end Chryslers of that era were especially unappealing, but that’s beating a dead horse.
Another thing – it seemed like three-quarters of the Nitros I ever saw were owned by National Grid.
I never paid much attention to the Aviator when it was in production, but that interior looks quite nice for a mid-2000s Ford product. It looks like they definitely stepped it up from the Explorer/Mountaineer.
As for the Nitro… That is one of the worst vehicles Chrysler has ever made, and that’s saying something! I worked in the detailing shop at a Hyundai/VW dealer for a little bit last year, and we got one in on trade. It was so horrible. Everything was so cheaply made and screwed together. While cleaning it, I managed to pull the entire cigarette lighter mechanism out, and the entire gear shift knob!!! Absolutely dreadful to drive as well, luckily I only had to drive it around the parking lot. The seats gave me a horrible backache just in that short time. I have absolutely no idea why anyone would buy one.
The Dodge Nitro was conceived when there was still two separate dealer networks for Dodge and Jeep. Dodge dealers wanted a version of a Jeep, and got Nitro. Then Daimler unloaded Chrysler to Cerberus, then BK, then Fiat combined the dealers to sell C-D-J-R.
Fiat boss decided to kill off redundant badge jobs, and Nitro was one of the first cut.