Rental Car Reviews

[kevm14]

5.034L V8

The sarcasm is strong with this one.

[Bob]

That is how you differentiate between the new and older Coyote V8s, right? Also, it's actually 5,038 cc compared to the older 4,951 so I'll fix it.

[kevm14]

New and older Coyote? I think you know more about Mustangs than I do.

[Bob]

We needed to help some friends move this weekend, so I reserved a pickup from National for $35/day. I was kinda hoping for a new Ram, but when I got to their location, they had everything but that. I ended up with a 2019 Ram Classic Big Horn with the Hemi. A lot of things about it feel cheap, unlike the new Ram. It has massive rear seat room and a fairly big bed. The Big Horn also has decent infotainment and dual zone auto climate, which is a plus.

[kevm14]

So Bob visited with his rental 2018 XT5. It was a high trim of some sort. I will post more later.

20190827_192938.jpg

For now I want to report that we lined up the XT5 against my STS. We can only find specs on the AWD XT5 which weighs 4,334 lbs, or maybe a tad heavier than my STS. It has the 3.6L V6 making 310 hp @ 6700 rpm (compared to 320 hp @ 6400 rpm for my STS) but also feels like it has a wide torque band, even though the peak of 271 lb-ft is less than the 315 lb-ft my STS makes.

So it seems like they'd be pretty close. Also the rental XT5 was FWD so should be a little quicker from a roll having better power to weight and less driveline loss.

We primarily did two events:
- One from a low speed or possibly a stop. It was starting to sprinkle so the XT5 suffered major traction loss. STS had a major advantage here.
- One from like 30 or something. Bob started in manual 2nd and I let mine kick down automatically. So he got an initial like 1 foot jump but then I just slowly began walking.

So this all makes sense. I would still put my STS in the ~96 mph trap speed range. Good news: it's slightly quicker than a 2018 XT5 which is actually a pretty common type of package these days. Much of the German competition is quicker of course.

Of note for the car itself:
- It had 41k rental miles and other than a slight rear hatch rattle, mismatched and somewhat poorly balanced tires and I guess a light brake pulsation, it appeared to have held up very well. Overall it exceeded my expectations in terms of comfort, performance and handling. My expectations were not all that high.
- The audio system performed well and should please any normal person. I found it to have pretty impressive power output at least rivaling my STS in that regard. However in terms of tuning, I still found the midbass too emphasized and a little muddy, lacking very low bass, and lacking definition on the very high end. To my ear (and I think Bob's), it still did not have the overall clarity and sophistication of my STS (better low and high extension, more flat and pleasing overall, and maybe a tad cleaner) which obviously I am happy with. I continue to value good factory audio, mainly because I find it plenty affordable in a used car even as a high trim option. I guess I will also note that unlike perhaps older or inferior systems, you can pretty much leave the EQ settings all flat and have a good sound reproduction. When you get in a car and feel the need to crank the bass and treble, I question the audio system at that point.
- There seemed to be a ridiculous amount of service room on the back half of the engine. This is a good thing and reminds me of my comparison of the Malibu to the Fusion. Could GM be doing a little better in underhood packaging lately? Who knows.

[kevm14]

A few more XT5 thoughts.

- It was roomier than I expected. The size footprint seems pretty reasonable for general non-third row family usage.
- Seats were firm and had pretty much zero bolstering. Our SRX has considerably more seat bolstering.
- Being an up-level trim it had some fancier features like auto high beams. I thought the auto high beams worked more responsively than my STS does.
- It also had rear dual zone auto climate, rear heated seats, front ventilated seats and stuff like that.
- It had non-MR adjustable suspension. In tour I thought the ride was almost supple even over rough pavement, and even with the 20" wheels. This is good. I did not try to compare to sport. Bob can fill in for that.
- The steering surprised me. It was variable ratio and had a decent feel on center then quickened toward lock. I also thought it felt pretty responsive immediately off center leading to an overall much more nimble feel than I expected. It actually felt more tossable than my STS even if ultimate handling may not be as good due to physics.
- The V6 felt good. It had a wide torque range, sounded decent and was responsive. Even though it is a tad slower than my STS, it gets considerably better fuel economy. I think Bob logged some mid to high 20s on the highway. Also, being FWD, the thing can just destroy the front tires if you punch it off the line. There is also torque steer but really only at lower speeds and obviously during very hard acceleration which is not a normal condition. In the northeast I'd probably still select AWD but only after driving and researching both (price, weight, fuel economy, performance).
- Against the market I don't know how compelling the XT5 really is, but taken in absolute terms, I found it to be a perfectly decent, nice driving vehicle with good space, overall performance and efficiency. Given that it is a midsize luxury crossover, I did NOT find it to be "basically the same as driving a minivan." That is worth pointing out. In fact, if its market competitors are BETTER than this, then I can completely understand why these are so popular, at least among a demographic that would otherwise be buying a $40-60k midsize luxury sedan if the crossover did not exist.

[Bob]

I recently rented another XT5 with the base suspension (non-adjustable) and 18 inch wheels and it was fairly disappointing. I think the base MDX is superior to the base XT5 in terms of driving dynamics, but the XT5 does seem to be improved significantly by the optional suspension.

[kevm14]

Somehow this thread died in 2019. I'll reinvigorate it rather than create a new one.

Just got home this week after a long 2 weeks in CA. It was one of those marathon vacations so there were a total of four hotels and 1,676 miles of driving. I got to experience what I assume to be a 2025 Chrysler Pacifica across a wide range of conditions and as such, must now review it. Company was National and airport was SNA. I reserved a minivan knowing it would be a Pacifica and they retrieved the keys without any real opportunity for me to ask for anything else.

Here it is at our first destination in Anaheim, CA.

20250805_125733.jpg

20250810_094852.jpg

First I will provide a quick thought summary.

Delights
- Audio system (I had low expectations). I liked the loudness curve for most of the time when it wasn't cranked up. And it had better power and clarity than I expected when I did explore the volume knob.
- Space efficiency and overall passenger comfort
- The steering was more direct when combined with the lack of excessive body lean, the van felt somewhat tossable
- Fuel economy was acceptable for a V6 van I guess. I got between 23 and 28 on various tanks.
- Brakes exceeded expectations. Never any juddering and no fade in any conditions.
- The ride quality was acceptable on 17s with lots of sidewall

Did not like
- Lots of slop on center in the steering despite 14k miles. The alignment was also off, so maybe this van experienced some action.
- Shock damping was equivalent to a W-body with 150k on it. Non-stop pogo stick ride unless on smooth surfaces.
- Not the van's fault but low grip tires were lame and became scalloped by the end of the trip due to hard cornering
- Throttle response. Typical 90s Chrysler. 10% throttle gets you way too much acceleration and 3500+ rpm shift points. Borderline dangerous lag when reapplying throttle after slowing to a stop or near stop.
- The engine was relatively smooth except at idle and around 3000 rpm where it had a consistent surge. Worse than that, it had no low end torque to speak of and I am sure many miles at elevation didn't help this perception. It always had to downshift to add speed.
- Perhaps on a related note, low range on the transmission did not add any noticeable engine braking. Sometimes it felt like it was actually LESS engine braking than if I just left it in D and let it upshift. This theory was proven by watching the instant fuel economy gauge. It would actually start dropping DURING a long mountain decent as if some emissions programming was making it add fuel even though I was coasting. REALLY annoying because I could have used real engine braking on many occasions.
- Transmission performance. The shift points were often wrong and this may be tied to the terrible throttle calibration. A lot of the time I felt like the transmission was fighting me.
- The 1234yf A/C was fine when at speed but when creeping became fairly lame. Much of our driving was longer trips so this wasn't too large of an issue. We did have a running joke that I would need to place an order for A/C after driving with the windows down. It felt like it took 8 minutes to actually feel the interior cooling down.

It also had adaptive cruise and while it did let the van come to a full stop, you had to press resume to get it rolling again. And the programming was mediocre at best. Lots of delayed reactions (both in braking and acceleration), and VERY annoying jerking braking behavior when in stop and go.

This will surprise no one, but if you prioritize passenger comfort and utility, this is the vehicle for you. Literally everything else is a compromise. I wouldn't totally hate it if:
- The transmission was supplied by someone else or at least programmed by someone else. Supposedly it was a 9 speed but it felt like a 15 year old 6 speed.
- Turbo V6 but there is no Chrysler family engine that would actually work. It would have been far more enjoyable with something like an M276. It is also possible that a 2.0T with equivalent power but better torque characteristics could be acceptable. Power at sea level not fully loaded is probably adequate.
- Adaptive damping. Or shocks designed by someone who actually likes to drive. It was really bad. I will note that most rental cars (and therefore most modern, regular cars) have fairly stiff springs and underdamped shocks. The van just took this formula to another level.
- Better tires. The chassis could take more for sure. I took them to the point of squeal over and over again and the only time the traction control system intervened is when I would try to accelerate while also turning sharply (which is not a FWD strong suit anyway). 99% of the time the system let me do what I wanted, even to the point of passenger discomfort.
- Seat comfort kind of sucked but there was so much room that you could just readjust whenever. The kids had fun with the third row which I kept up the whole time.

Back in my S550 at 3am I was able to immediately contrast to the van and some notable observations were:
- Seat comfort. I didn't realize how hard and narrow the cushions were on the van, until I got back into my S550.
- Suspension. The S550 is both much smoother and also more compliant. It was so weird to take bumps and not have the whole car heaving around. It was very noticeable immediately after nearly 1,700 miles in the Pacifica.
- Engine. Wow, actual low end torque! The S550 can actually accelerate if I press the gas more at 1500 rpm. The only time it really needs to downshift is if it happens to be in a gear running 1100 rpm. Then it downshifts to 1600 and accelerates. I found myself driving gently in the S550 because there was no need to wind the engine out just to move it around.
- Despite the room in the van, the S550 is far more comfortable to pilot when you take into account all factors such as the seat and the way the car responds to inputs.

The Pacifica was probably the right tool for the job but my god, I do not want one at all.