My Ecoboost Flex is a rocket, so the Taurus SHO should be even more nuts.

Point is, if you go with the Stinger, you better get the GT.

Wackbards said he was looking at the AWD version of the Kia.

The Taurus SHO has been AWD since 2010.

Think before you criticize.

Wife car. Creature comforts and visibility trump all else. Must be AWD though. They don't plow the road she works on, and it gets really sketchy.

0w 40 is 40 weight at operating temperature. 0w 20 is 20 weight at operating temperature. There is a significant difference between 20 weight and 40 weight so I can see why there would be a difference. Operating an engine on 20 weight since new probably contributed to the excess wear which causes oil consumption. Additionally, a horizontal configuration engine will have greater oil consumption much of the time versus a vertical cylinder arrangement.

You are right. There are definitely metallurgy and tolerance differences between manufacturers. And don't Subarus have some issues with head gaskets?

One is based on a FWD boat, the other on a RWD sedan. The difference between adding power to rear wheels sometimes and adding power to front wheels sometimes isn't small. :party:

They are both boats. Whether the crankshaft is facing sideways or front-to-back makes little functional difference when discussing vehicles in the "wife car" class.

The only meaningful distinction between the two is that, with the Ford, you can specify the trunk of your car as a delivery point for Amazon packages.

That was the old non-STi EJ engines I believe. Specifically the SOHC engines?

Not sure. I don't make a ton of attention to non-fun cars.

Cars in general are ridiculous nowadays. $20k new is basically the minimum to have something acceptable by modern standards.

And that gets you a base model Mazda 3.

I agree with that 100%.

My only disagreeance was equating Stinger as a "copy of a Taurus."

Nah, that's a common belief in the South.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...gBiffleCar.jpg

--Ian

Well, I'm open to any recommendations that meet these basic requirements. So far, only sedans have had the visibility that she's found acceptable.

AWD
Heated leather seats
Excellent visibility
<$35k

Must it be new, or is used acceptable?

--Ian

CPO might fly. Needs warranty. Wife won't let me touch it.

Sooooo I had to get a car that was:
AWD,
Huge enough to fit 3 car seats,
Cheap enough.

And I ended up with this Chrysler 300s... (what has become of my life?):
Honestly... its way nicer than I thought it would be. I look like a gangster old man from Detroit and I don't care. Gets 27ish mpg on my commute, system sounds pretty good, its smooth, quiet, whale sized, can be had for 21kish at 30kmiles.
https://cimg3.ibsrv.net/gimg/www.mia...7833e6a9d7.jpg
https://cimg6.ibsrv.net/gimg/www.mia...08a7ca09fe.jpg

Honda HR-V or CR-V. Mitsubishi Eclipse Cross. Nissan Rogue. Etc.

Anything but a Kia.

https://proxy.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=h...jpg&f=1&nofb=1

Actually, the CRV is the top contender. But even my wife declared it boring. This is coming from someone who doesn't want to give up her 2008 Corolla.

Hyundai?

mini countryman ticks all those boxes... though if you want the S model, you'll probably have to haggle a little (it's 36,750 decently configured). still, you can probably configure what you want online and send the build to a dealer with an offer about halfway between invoice and MSRP.

but ... ask me what it costs to have a transfer case replaced out of warranty...

That one came up in my search, but I have a hard time recommending Mini to anyone I care about, for precisely the reason you cite.

Let's also recommend a Dacia Duster, while we're at it.