Dear Car Talk:
I love your column and wouldn’t miss it. Here’s my question: Why don’t car manufacturers put two sun visors on cars — one for the windshield and one for the side window?
I live where there are lots of winding roads, and every time I go around a bend, the sun “shifts” and ends up right in my eyes.
Years ago, I had a Volvo with two visors, so when I was driving, I didn’t have to keep flipping the visor back and forth from front to side as I drove. Thanks. — Fran
A handful of cars I’ve driven have had them, Fran. But off the top of my head, I can’t remember which ones.
I know I’ve driven older Ford Explorers with them, and older Nissan Pathfinders. And I occasionally see them on some higherend cars like Porsches and Range Rovers, when customers let me sit in them.
Why doesn’t everybody do it? Well, I don’t want to accuse the automotive industry of being cheap, but I’m guessing that the extra cost is a factor. Maybe it only costs a few dollars to add a second visor, but you multiply that by a million vehicles a year and suddenly your customers are saying, “Wait, the tire tread is optional?”
I think the other factor is that the demand is not universal. Not that many people regularly drive on the kinds of roads you drive on, Fran.
While we do hear from people who want two visors, it’s not what we’d call a groundswell. It’s currently tied with electronic butt scratchers as the 131st most-requested new car feature.
It would be nice if you could order it as an option. But it’s not necessarily easy to add on after the car is built, since it’s mounted to the underside of the car’s roof. So you’ll probably have to do what your fellow sun-in-your-eyes-on-winding-roads compatriots do, Fran. Get a good pair of sunglasses or a strip of tinted plastic and some double-sided tape for the top of your side window. Happy squinting!
Dear Car Talk:
You should have added the Honda Fit as an option for that lady whose arthritic golden retriever can’t jump up into her Yukon anymore.
The back seat lifts up and out of the way. Plus, it’s only 15 inches from the ground to the doorsill.
It’s affordable, too. Just make sure she remembers that the Fit doesn’t have much ground clearance like her Yukon, so no off-roading! But I think the Fit could be the right fit for her “dog” car!
Fondly, Linda
Well, now you’ve presented me with an ethical dilemma, Linda. Do I have to split the check Honda sends me for this recommendation with you?
The Fit is not a bad idea. I leaned toward a minivan, because the sliding doors open so wide, and the back seats can come out completely, leaving a big, flat floor. The Fit’s doors are much smaller, by comparison. But the Fit might be worth a look.
Dear Car Talk:
I have another suggestion for Holly, the older woman with the older dog that had trouble getting into her Yukon. You recommended a minivan, which is a good idea.
But if there’s a perfect vehicle for her, I’d say it’s a Ford Transit
Connect Cargo Van. It’s a great, small, easy-to-handle vehicle that’s very low to the ground. The back is all flat, with a nonslip rubber type floor, and no seats to remove. And it gets good mileage with regular 87 octane.
One downside is that it just seats two people, but I would guess a woman or man in their late 70s isn’t hauling groups of people very often.
It also has big sliding doors on both sides. Maybe you can pass this on to Holly. I think it would be perfect. I’m a guy in my late 60s with a black lab. — Jan
Is this a dating site now, Jan? You’re right. The Transit Connect has all the advantages of a minivan but smaller and without any rear seats to get in the way.
It’s a bit more — shall we say — barbaric than a minivan. It was designed as a small, bare bones delivery van. But for Holly’s dedicated, dog-carrying purpose, it could be perfect. Good idea.
Got a question about cars? Write to Ray in care of King Features, 628 Virginia Drive, Orlando, FL 32803, or email by visiting the Car Talk website at www.cartalk.com.