|
Juando290 posted:So, as I stated a page or two ago...I am a car salesman at a dealership that sells many makes new...including honda and Acura... If anyone sees a big flaw in my thinking, here's the standard template: Proposed Budget: <25k New or Used: New Body Style: small SUV How will you be using the car?: (Do you tow things? Haul more than 5 people on a regular basis? Have a super long commute? How are you going to use this vehicle? Do you prefer a luxury vehicle with all the gizmos?) regular camping, skiing trips with 2-4 people, short commute, phone connectivity for audio What aspects are most important to you? (e.g. reliability, cost of ownership/maintenance, import/domestic, MPG, size, style) Size (upgrading from a sedan which is too small for our trips) Long-term costs, reliability, MPG, interior features
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2013 05:54
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 19, 2024 07:13 |
|
|
The Vikings posted:Hey, that's some pretty helpful info and I was wondering if you had a similar infodump on the Honda CRV? We've been looking for a small SUV for a while and after test driving the Rav4, CRV, Forester, and Escape, have found that we like the CRV the best. I'm looking at the 2WD EX model. I've been looking at the USAA car buying thing, which gives me a low price of $22,571 + fees (2,277.00 from the DMV website) which seems ok. We're near LA if that matters. Just buy a roof rack. More seriously.. If you are looking at cross overs, you are doing yourself a disservice not testing the Mazda CX-5.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2013 11:58
|
|
|
My car is in the shop for the second time this month, and I'm starting to think about replacing it. I know pretty much nothing about cars, I don't even really know how much to budget - I could afford $30K, but if I can get a great car for half that then that means more money into savings. I want something fun but reliable (I currently drive a 2000 Beetle. I long for reliable). In general I gravitate towards smaller cars (I've been eyeballing the Scion FR-S towards the top of my budget, and the Mazda3, Ford Focus and Ford Fiesta). However, I like the aesthetic of muscle cars, and have been drooling over my neighbor's Dodge Challenger. Proposed Budget: $10K-$30K. New or Used: Probably certified pre-owned. I'm open to new, but I'm leery of the initial depreciation. Body Style: (e.g. 2 door? 4 door? Compact/Midsize/Fullsize Sedan? Truck? SUV?) Coupe, hatchback or sedan. I'd like something fairly sporty and fun, but with enough trunk space to throw a couple of carry-on suitcases in. How will you be using the car?: (Do you tow things? Haul more than 5 people on a regular basis? Have a super long commute? How are you going to use this vehicle? Do you prefer a luxury vehicle with all the gizmos?) Mostly commuting to work (2 miles at the moment, will likely be a bit more next year) and in-town driving. Occasional 3-5 hour drives, maybe once every couple of months. I'd really like leather seats, because I work out a lot and I feel they don't hold on to sweat stink as much, but this isn't a dealbreaker. Good air conditioning is a must (I live in Texas). I'm happy with manual or automatic, maybe leaning a little towards automatic because I'm getting tired of driving a manual in heavy traffic. What aspects are most important to you? (e.g. reliability, cost of ownership/maintenance, import/domestic, MPG, size, style) I realize this will sound ridiculously superficial, but I'd like a car in an unusual color, or that stands out in some way. I am pretty absent minded, and often forget exactly which aisle I parked in. My current car is yellow, and I really like how easy it is to find in a parking garage. I'd also like good rear visibility - I rented a Prius recently and it sucked.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2013 16:56
|
|
|
Math You posted:Just buy a roof rack. Have one, still not enough room  Seriously though, we do a 3 day trip at least once a month and the sedan hasn't been cutting it, we've had to rent something bigger several times which is a pain in the rear end to do.Will check out the Mazda though.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2013 18:03
|
|
|
I'm looking at a 2013 Hyundai Elantra Sedan GLS automatic "preferred package". I've been looking for awhile and haven't pulled the trigger for a million not relevant to this thread reasons... Anyway, I asked when they would get the 2014s in... they said November... but the 2013s would be a much better deal... I don't doubt this at all of course... but just in general is their any rule of thumb kind of advice anyone has about buying a car late in the year? If I hold out til October 31st am I going to potentially save a bunch of money as apposed to buying it tomorrow?
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2013 18:06
|
|
|
lumbergill posted:My car is in the shop for the second time this month, and I'm starting to think about replacing it. I know pretty much nothing about cars, I don't even really know how much to budget - I could afford $30K, but if I can get a great car for half that then that means more money into savings. I want something fun but reliable (I currently drive a 2000 Beetle. I long for reliable). In general I gravitate towards smaller cars (I've been eyeballing the Scion FR-S towards the top of my budget, and the Mazda3, Ford Focus and Ford Fiesta). However, I like the aesthetic of muscle cars, and have been drooling over my neighbor's Dodge Challenger. If what you really want is a good looking v8 powered couch, the challenger is really what you should get. In orange or black. Don't get a v6 and don't get the srt unless you know why. If you can't spring for the v8, don't bother. Without the sound (my neighbor in my paking garage has an rt, sounds great), it isn't the same. The visibility is ok, not tank like like a camaro, but check it out. If you can actually afford it (not stretching yourself), you basically don't drive much, so why not have something cool. I've heard of few issues with them. The interior is a little playskolish, but so is on the cheaper cars you are considering.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2013 18:56
|
|
|
nm posted:If what you really want is a good looking v8 powered couch, the challenger is really what you should get. In orange or black. Don't get a v6 and don't get the srt unless you know why. I should be able to afford it (income of ~150K, no dependents), but it seems... frivolous, I guess. My last car was my most expensive purchase to date, at ~4K. I guess I need to start test driving cars, figure out whether I really value a challenger or a FR-S more than a Focus and money in the bank.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2013 20:59
|
|
|
lumbergill posted:I should be able to afford it (income of ~150K, no dependents), but it seems... frivolous, I guess. My last car was my most expensive purchase to date, at ~4K. A V6 Mustang in some crazy color might also fit your bill and be less expensive. Also smaller on the inside, a bit less comfortable, but much more on the sporty and fun scale.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2013 21:05
|
|
|
lumbergill posted:I should be able to afford it (income of ~150K, no dependents), but it seems... frivolous, I guess. My last car was my most expensive purchase to date, at ~4K. what about a Focus ST? They come in "Tangerine Scream" which is a color you can pick out from space. Decent economy, not crazy expensive but still a little kick in the rear end. I think the going price is 25k or less depending on options. If you're willing to wait, I'm sure preowned CPOs will start appearing for even less $ .
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2013 21:21
|
|
|
Weinertron posted:A V6 Mustang in some crazy color might also fit your bill and be less expensive. Also smaller on the inside, a bit less comfortable, but much more on the sporty and fun scale. http://goo.gl/jWV4zx The need to carry the 107 pound dog around won that argument, though. Xguard86 posted:"Tangerine Scream" Seriously, last month there were two in Colorado, Utah and New Mexico that weren't Tangerine Scream, and they were Tuxedo Black. To find a Focus ST in Oxford White (to match our M3), we'd have had to go to St. Louis, and the next closest white one was near Huntington Beach, CA. It's a crazy world we live in where White is the "crazy" color! Kenny Rogers fucked around with this message at 21:42 on Sep 11, 2013 |
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2013 21:24
|
|
|
lumbergill posted:I should be able to afford it (income of ~150K, no dependents), but it seems... frivolous, I guess. My last car was my most expensive purchase to date, at ~4K. The FR-S has a real nice sound for the motor its got. I'm really thinking hard about one but having a 5 month winter really blows  Since you're in Texas just try it out!
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2013 00:06
|
|
|
I've owned a Challenger for three years now and still really enjoy it. Haven't had a single issue with anything, and its a very comfortable car that can be used as a daily driver. If you have any questions about them, let me know, we almost went with an R/T, but ended up going with a pretty Tor Red SRT8 instead. The Challenger was recently rated as the vehicle with the highest owner satisfaction by Consumer Reports this year, believe it or not. That said, don't get a V6, you should be able to easily find a nice used V8 in your budget range. In other news, I'm expecting a baby in a few months and need to trade out one of my other cars for a baby friendly model. I also don't have anything with 4WD right now so I thought it would be nice to hit both categories. Edit: Proposed Budget: 10-25k New or Used: New or used Body Style: small to medium SUV, don't want three rows How will you be using the car?: don't care about towing capacity as I have a beat up half ton for that, this will be a baby mobile as well as a vehicle that can keep us secure in poor conditions. We take regular trips down trailheads, over mountain passes, and especially over loose sand beaches but no hardcore offroading would be expected Do you prefer a luxury vehicle? Eh, not really but I don't want a jeep wrangler either, something that has a nice feel and some features would be good What aspects are most important to you? (e.g. reliability, cost of ownership/maintenance, import/domestic, MPG, size, style) Size (upgrading from a sedan which is too small for our trips) AWD/4WD, safety, reliability, solid off road and in bad weather I've looked at the new Forester and a Honda Pilot, but I'd like to get some other suggestions or advice also. Additionally, what would you guys recommend in the lower end of my range (10k ish)? APOLLO OHNO-UDIDNT fucked around with this message at 00:32 on Sep 12, 2013 |
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2013 00:18
|
|
|
The Nissan Juke comes in a nice blue (not common but it exists). http://www.cars.com/go/search/detai...onal&listType=1  Seems like it would do everything you need while still being decently sporty for significantly less money than a Challenger. Kenny Rogers posted:We were sorely tempted by a couple used 2013 v6 Mustang convertibles in Grabber Blue, which is possibly the craziest of colors without crossing into the land of 'Ugh, really?'. Stryker Blue or Liquid Red G8 GT http://www.cars.com/go/search/detai...onal&listType=1  http://www.cars.com/go/search/detai...onal&listType=1 
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2013 00:24
|
|
|
Wow, I didn't expect this many helpful replies. Thanks, car folk! I think Tangerine Scream is a bit *too* loud for my tastes, the blues that Throatwarbler posted are more what I was thinking. I'll definitely add the Nissan and the Mustang to my list. The Mustang is probably more suited to what I want than the Challenger to be honest, I just aesthetically love the Challenger's whale-shark grill. One more question. Is there a "best" time of year to buy a car, in terms of getting deals and good financing rates? I can hold off a couple of months (and build up my downpayment) if it's going to end up saving me money.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2013 17:06
|
|
|
Weinertron posted:A V6 Mustang in some crazy color might also fit your bill and be less expensive. Also smaller on the inside, a bit less comfortable, but much more on the sporty and fun scale. I've been driving one of these as a rental just because I wanted a convertible. There is nothing sporty or fun about the Mustang I am driving. It is supposed to have 300 horses, which I was very surprised to read. Saltin fucked around with this message at 18:15 on Sep 12, 2013 |
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2013 18:09
|
|
|
Saltin posted:I've been driving one of these as a rental just because I wanted a convertible. There is nothing sporty or fun about the Mustang I am driving. It is supposed to have 300 horses, which I was very surprised to read. Your rental is a 2011+? The base-ish Mustangs might have numb steering, but they're certainly not slow. The engine sounds worse and isn't a torque monster down low, but its' very capable and responsive.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2013 20:32
|
|
|
Weinertron posted:Your rental is a 2011+? The base-ish Mustangs might have numb steering, but they're certainly not slow. The engine sounds worse and isn't a torque monster down low, but its' very capable and responsive. It's got to be because it only has 4k miles on it. Even when I put it in sport mode and shift myself it feels heavy. You are right about the steering too, there is a massive dead spot in the middle of it and I feel disconnected from the road. Maybe I am spoiled by my G37, I dunno.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2013 22:23
|
|
|
Saltin posted:It's got to be because it only has 4k miles on it. Even when I put it in sport mode and shift myself it feels heavy. You are right about the steering too, there is a massive dead spot in the middle of it and I feel disconnected from the road. Maybe I am spoiled by my G37, I dunno. I drove one last year and I felt the same way about it. I was geeked for my first Mustang drive and I was pretty disappointed. It felt like any other sedan in its class except for the fact that due to the sporty styling it had poo poo visibility.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2013 00:21
|
|
|
APOLLO OHNO-UDIDNT posted:I've owned a Challenger for three years now and still really enjoy it. Haven't had a single issue with anything, and its a very comfortable car that can be used as a daily driver. If you have any questions about them, let me know, we almost went with an R/T, but ended up going with a pretty Tor Red SRT8 instead. The Challenger was recently rated as the vehicle with the highest owner satisfaction by Consumer Reports this year, believe it or not. That said, don't get a V6, you should be able to easily find a nice used V8 in your budget range. For a $25k new car go with the Forester. It has best in class crash safety and isn't too terrible in most other respects. There's also the new Mitsubishi Outlander which also gets very good crash scores but it's kind of too new for any of us to know much about it so you'll have to give it a try, and also AWD is only on the mid-upper level trims which take the price up a bit. For $10k you should probably get a Forester too, or a Legacy wagon/Outback. THe downside of the old Foresters were that they had pretty awful fuel economy for what they were but it doesn't sound like you're too concerned about it. Throatwarbler fucked around with this message at 02:33 on Sep 13, 2013 |
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2013 02:31
|
|
|
Saltin posted:I've been driving one of these as a rental just because I wanted a convertible. There is nothing sporty or fun about the Mustang I am driving. It is supposed to have 300 horses, which I was very surprised to read. Apparently the v6 auto mustang is geared very high for FE, which the stick isn't. Or so i've been told. This makes it quite a bit slower.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2013 02:37
|
|
|
The Vikings posted:Hey, that's some pretty helpful info and I was wondering if you had a similar infodump on the Honda CRV? We've been looking for a small SUV for a while and after test driving the Rav4, CRV, Forester, and Escape, have found that we like the CRV the best. I'm looking at the 2WD EX model. I've been looking at the USAA car buying thing, which gives me a low price of $22,571 + fees (2,277.00 from the DMV website) which seems ok. We're near LA if that matters. So, yes, look at the Mazda, but the one with the bigger engine, the smaller engine version is running off a modified Mazda 3 engine running at an incredibly high compression ratio and it will cause headaches down the road and it is also the least powerful of the group, and the worst handling as well (skid pad testing, loses grip way before the others) Forrester, highest cost of ownership of the bunch. (tires, service). If I lived in an area with many months of ice, I would go Subaru, simply because they have the best AWD system in a non luxury vehicle, but there is a cost to benefit ratio that has to be considered. Are the cost benefits of getting that awd system and boxer engine (head gaskets pretty much need replacing at 100k miles if it goes that long without a problem) if you go to edmunds and look at a 5 year true cost to own, the Subaru comes out quite a bit more. It also has the least amount of total storage than the ford, honda, Toyota or Mazda, but it also has the most ground clearance (over 8 inches). They also have the worst personal tech (incredibly clunky on the voice controls, sub-par backup camera, plasticky cheap feeling to the trim) Ford escape is probably the most expensive of the group, and it has had a lot of recalls in the past year. I like the car, but I would like to see them go 8-12 months without a major recall before I recommend them. Toyota Rav 4, nice new generation, standard alloy wheels and roof rails on all trims, largest storage area (2 cubic feet more than the CRV) but the front is incredibly not usefull, lacks sufficient storage space for much of anything, they are all looks. Crv is the least inspiring in terms of looks. Comes with the multi angle back up camera, good rear leg room but least comfortable back seats. Lowest cost of ownership of the group. I can answer specific questions and do a more detailed write up on any one of these vehicles, but I will admit, the Subaru,, Rav and CRV are the main ones I can speak really confidently on. Juando290 fucked around with this message at 02:57 on Sep 13, 2013 |
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2013 02:54
|
|
|
nm posted:Apparently the v6 auto mustang is geared very high for FE, which the stick isn't. Or so i've been told. This makes it quite a bit slower. The very base model Mustangs get a 2.73 rear end while the ones that get sent to the magazines all have the optional 3.31 rear. I've never rented a Mustang and I don't know exactly how their options are packaged but I would guess that the rental specs probably have the lazy rear end while most retail buyers would opt for the faster one.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2013 03:48
|
|
|
FFFFFFFFFFFFFffffffffff! The dealership called yesterday, and said that they screwed up the paperwork (n.b. I have history with this sort of thing, so I may be unreasonably leery here - Freeway Ford in Denver pulled the old "your financing fell through - We need $500, and for you to sign these new papers or bring the car back" deal when I bought the Vibe in 2004. That sucked rear end. After our repeat lovely treatment at O'Meara Ford recently, gently caress FoMoCo forever.) What the finance lady (Kim "The Money Mama" Katellaper) said when she called is that they failed to take into account that my municipality (Northglenn, CO) requires the sales tax to be paid up front, and they're going to eat that $560, but it required them to rework the numbers so that they could make the deal without having to ask for any more money from me up front. I got the FedEx package this afternoon, and here are the old and new terms in a Google Doc. It looks kosher to my eyes, I think? I'm very hesitant to believe that they're eating a single dollar, only cleverly hiding it someplace - Probably the depreciation vs. residual vs. rent charge section, but there's clearly $105 back into their pocket padded into the "new and improved" Line Item 11... It looks like they've increased the base payments by $614.88, but have decreased the taxes over the life of the lease by 614.16. The only thing that makes me a little nervous is having the extra money in the "Due at Signing" section, without having actually paid that OR having something notarized on letterhead stating that Mini of Loveland is, in fact, eating that cost...so it doesn't come back and bite me later in any way. Is that reasonable? Am I missing something obvious here? Is it essentially the same deal with money shifted around a little? Should I sign and FedEx it back? Is it radically not in my favor now? Should I drive the car back to them and tell them "Here's my drat $50/day and $.50/mile. Cancel the contract and go screw yourselves." and consider it a $750 lesson? After all the back and forth dissecting the deal, I'm super annoyed by this. Kenny Rogers fucked around with this message at 06:47 on Sep 13, 2013 |
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2013 06:18
|
|
|
Kenny Rogers posted:FFFFFFFFFFFFFffffffffff! Instead of signing and fedexing, if you are able to, go to the dealer and make them explain it to you face to face. I don't see any issue, bu I am not a finance manager. It always bugs me when they miss something and have to "resign". Luckily, our dealer pretty much has a rule that in almost every case, we get an approval before we send a customer out in their car...hell, we actually will not let someone drive away without proof that the car has full coverage insurance (unless they are trading in a vehicle with full coverage). People always go "my insurance covers me for 'x' amount of time and the state allows it" and we say "that's nice, but we still choose if we are going to sell you a car and so our rules trump your insurance". Most people appreciate that we take a little longer to get the paperwork done, but that it is done right he first time.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2013 06:49
|
|
|
Math You posted:Just buy a roof rack. Doesn't the cx-5 have some ridiculous service that has to be done on it at 50k and 100k? I have been toying between a CX-5 grand touring and Ford Escape Titanium. Both look like they'd be great for 2+baby on the way. We don't do much traveling and aren't into the whole bike thing. This would be replacing a honda civic.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2013 15:36
|
|
|
Juando290 posted:So, yes, look at the Mazda, but the one with the bigger engine, the smaller engine version is running off a modified Mazda 3 engine running at an incredibly high compression ratio and it will cause headaches down the road and it is also the least powerful of the group, and the worst handling as well (skid pad testing, loses grip way before the others) Till then, the Crv is at the top of the list, so any more details you have world be appreciated. I've read that the 2014 had not changed at all, so no reason not to just go with a '13 for less money, right? Also, is the eco mode useful? I've been told that I mash the gas while driving so if it can limit that and save some fuel that would be good. The other thing I was hoping for a comment on was price. The 22k + CA fees from one of the USAA deals seems better than what I'm seeing on Edmunds and the like for a reasonable price at 24-25k for an EX 2wd, but I'm up for trying to negotiate directly with dealers.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2013 18:20
|
|
|
Thanks Throatwarbler for the feedback, a Forester is definitely on my list. Do you or Juando290 know much about the CR-V or Rav 4's offroad capability? Again, not serious offroading, just snow, loose sand, primitive roads. Also, regarding the Subaru headgasket issues on the boxer, I thought that they have been resolved at this point supposedly?
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2013 19:02
|
|
|
APOLLO OHNO-UDIDNT posted:Thanks Throatwarbler for the feedback, a Forester is definitely on my list. Do you or Juando290 know much about the CR-V or Rav 4's offroad capability? Again, not serious offroading, just snow, loose sand, primitive roads. Post 2005 non-turbo subarus have fixed hgs. No turbo subaru has hg issues.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2013 19:10
|
|
|
Juando290 posted:So, yes, look at the Mazda, but the one with the bigger engine, the smaller engine version is running off a modified Mazda 3 engine running at an incredibly high compression ratio and it will cause headaches down the road and it is also the least powerful of the group, and the worst handling as well (skid pad testing, loses grip way before the others) The 2.5L is the same Skyactiv engine family, it's not the old MZR 2.5L; any long term issues that crop up with the 2.0L would likely exist on the 2.5L. The Vikings posted:I am curious if that comment by another poster about the big Mazda service is accurate. I'll try to go look at one this weekend. I don't know of a specific factory-recommended service like that on the CX-5, but as a direct-injection only engine it is highly likely that it will need an intake valve cleaning and that might be what they were referring to. It's not a headgasket job, but it's not exactly trivial and it's a decent bit of work if you're doing it yourself (like I did on my Mazdaspeed3. Does anyone know if Skyactiv engines have EGR? That will determine a lot of it. The problem is the same one you see advertised at every gas station about how their fuels keep your engine cleaner. Conventionally-injected engines (or the occasional hybrid DI/port injection engine like in the Toyobaru) have at least some of the fuel enter the engine through the intake port, so the fuel actually washes the intake valve. Direct injection mounts the injector so that it sprays directly into the cylinder, so the intake valve is theoretically only passing air. The problem is that emissions requires, at the very least, that your crankcase ventilation go into the intake tract (oily air) and often that under some conditions, some exhaust gases (EGR, full of soot and the like) are put into the intake tract as well. In a port-injection engine, the deposits that these leave get washed off the valve and all is good. In a direct injection engine, they build up over time and get baked on big time, decreasing performance and economy. However, DI does have a lot of performance and efficiency benefits, so this is something we may just have to deal with on a lot of cars going forward. The Vikings posted:Till then, the Crv is at the top of the list, so any more details you have world be appreciated. I've read that the 2014 had not changed at all, so no reason not to just go with a '13 for less money, right? Also, is the eco mode useful? I've been told that I mash the gas while driving so if it can limit that and save some fuel that would be good. 2013 CRV LX 2WD owner here. As far as I know there were no changes from the 2012 to 2013, and I'd be surprised if there were any significant ones from 2013 to 2014. I wouldn't bat an eye at buying a 2013 for less money. Eco mode does seem to be useful. I've never driven mine for any significant length of time outside of it and I actually prefer driving with it on than without it. I have a sneaky suspicion that what it really is, is a more linear throttle mapping combined with slightly more conservative shift points in the transmission, whereas standard has a very aggressive throttle mapping. A lot of companies are using drive-by-wire throttles to make a small throttle pedal input turn into opening the throttle up a lot, so the car feels 'faster' (when it's just making you open the throttle more). I prefer a linear throttle, rather than having the slightest throttle input mapped to 80% throttle. For reference, my average mileage to date according to aCar is 28.1 MPG. We do drive a lot of highway miles, though; we bought it at the very end of April and it has nearly 11k on it now. It will absolutely let you floor it and wind it out all the way to redline even in Eco mode, and the transmission does a good enough job of being in the right gear / shifting quickly that I don't think rolling acceleration at WOT is significantly different between Eco and normal. I'd say that's a hell of a price - I didn't pay that much less for my LX back in April, so you're getting a nice deal on the EX package. I will say that the three-angle backup camera was a big push towards the CR-V for us; the CX-5 doesn't have any backup camera at all until you go to the Touring trim, and then it's a single angle and $3k more than the CR-V LX. APOLLO OHNO-UDIDNT posted:Thanks Throatwarbler for the feedback, a Forester is definitely on my list. Do you or Juando290 know much about the CR-V or Rav 4's offroad capability? Again, not serious offroading, just snow, loose sand, primitive roads. Offroad "capability" in the CR-V world is pretty much "it has a little more ground clearance". The thing is a Civic with a taller body; the tires may be bigger but they're low-rolling-resistance Continentals.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2013 21:41
|
|
|
nm posted:Post 2005 non-turbo subarus have fixed hgs. Publicly they say this...privately however...one of my desk managers just transferred from our Subaru store and he said they still have issues, just nt as extreme, but it is still a problem. APOLLO OHNO-UDIDNT posted:Thanks Throatwarbler for the feedback, a Forester is definitely on my list. Do you or Juando290 know much about the CR-V or Rav 4's offroad capability? Again, not serious offroading, just snow, loose sand, primitive roads. The Subaru obviously wins out here in terms of off road. CRV is oddly enough, next, and then the Rav. I don't need to go over the Subaru, because it is self explanatory (has almost two more inches of ground clearance than the other two, and constant AWD) The CRV AWD has been updated on its traction systems. If it were a 2011, I would put it behind the RAV, but in 2012 models and above, honda cheated a little bit and took the computers that operate the Super Handling AWD on Acuras and utilized it in the dumbed down regular AWD on the CRV. They call it "Predictive AWD" and what it does is react waaaaay faster than the old system. In the 11's and before, you could have almost two seconds of front wheel spin before it would kick torque to the rear wheels, where the RAV at least had the option of push button 4WD (something they retained in the new generation) but the new CRV now takes about 1/8th of a wheelspin up front to recognize that it should start transferring torque. It can do it dynamically from 15%-25%, all the way up to 50% to the rear wheels. It will also automatically transfer 50% to the rear before traction loss when you are going up a steep hill. Even from a dead stop on flat dry ground, if you floor it, it will transfer 25% of its torque to the rear to maintain traction during acceleration. Tings the RAV does not do. It is fast enough that the lack of push button AWD is fine because it will react faster than you could have reached for a button. You are basically getting a luxury cars AWD system in a B level vehicle (it is actually the exact same AWD they put on the Acura RDX for 2013.)
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2013 00:45
|
|
|
I don't really like to wade into this AWD stuff because for non-track use it's almost entirely irrelevant, but most Subarus are "part time" AWD with no center differential and only a clutchpack. The only ones that do have center differentials are models with a manual transmission or the 3.6l H6 with the 5 speed auto. I really wouldn't buy a Subaru (STi excepted) just because they do good marketing for their AWD.
Throatwarbler fucked around with this message at 00:56 on Sep 14, 2013 |
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2013 00:54
|
|
|
Not quite a looking for question, but thoughts on a 2011 BMW 328i for listed for $27k and trying to get it for $26k out the door? EDIT: CPO, 22k miles. RoyalScion fucked around with this message at 01:26 on Sep 14, 2013 |
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2013 01:23
|
|
|
Throatwarbler posted:I don't really like to wade into this AWD stuff because for non-track use it's almost entirely irrelevant, but most Subarus are "part time" AWD with no center differential and only a clutchpack. The only ones that do have center differentials are models with a manual transmission or the 3.6l H6 with the 5 speed auto. I really wouldn't buy a Subaru (STi excepted) just because they do good marketing for their AWD. Anything with the 5 speed auto, not just the 3.6 is more like a full time haldex. Note that most OBs and foresters (regardless of transmission) have mechanical rear LSDs, which gives them a leg up on most other cute utes. I am not totally familiar with the 4 speed auto awd these days, but I think it now has a diff. You can no longer pull a fuse to disable awd these days. Most awd on cute utes is pretty shoddy, I suspect the subaru system is better in situations like 1 wheel with traction. It is also true that subarus have some insane ground clearances. My legacy when stock had more than 6 inches. Last gen outbacks had jeep like ground clearance. The aapproach/departure angles are not jeep like, but better than one might expect. Re: head gaskets. Newer subarus do not seem to have any failure rate higher than other cars. It is a bigger deal because you have to pull the engine to pull heads. It is also still noticed more because of the old failure rate. when they do fail now, they tend to fail externally, which is just an expensive coolant leak, rather than interally which leads oil and coolant to mix. nm fucked around with this message at 01:30 on Sep 14, 2013 |
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2013 01:28
|
|
|
nm posted:Anything with the 5 speed auto, not just the 3.6 is more like a full time haldex. For models currently in production(that's what I meant, sorry) that's basically it. Subaru calls it VTD and it's basically a planetary center differential like the STi/SpecB, so it is "full time" AWD. It's not strictly tied to the 5 speed as they use to offer it as an option on the old 4 speed Outbacks too. I think they took the rear LSD out of pretty much everything newer than 2009. APOLLO OHNO-UDIDNT, here's the site for everything you need to know about Subarus. http://www.cars101.com/
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2013 01:54
|
|
|
IOwnCalculus posted:2013 CRV LX 2WD owner here. As far as I know there were no changes from the 2012 to 2013, and I'd be surprised if there were any significant ones from 2013 to 2014. I wouldn't bat an eye at buying a 2013 for less money. Car & Driver September issue "New cars for 2014" says the Honda CRV is unchanged for 2014. However, they list an "Urban SUV" to be released in 2014 that is "as-yet unnamed Fit-based crossover... shorter and lighter than the CR-V, this five-door vehicle will feature Honda's flat-folding and flipping seats and an engine sized to make the oil sheiks quake." I don't know what this will be, exactly, but if we're contemplating waiting to see what's what for 2014, this might be an option. There is a new Forester for 2014, and Subaru is also making a "XV Crosstrek" hybrid. There are minor trim changes to the RAV4. And the Ford C-Max will have an update to the plugin hybrid and regular hybrid versions. Edit: which, now that I look at it, has no bearing on this conversation, I don't know why I thought the C-Max was a mini-SUV. The Ford Escape has "minor trim changes" for 2014. Leperflesh fucked around with this message at 03:46 on Sep 14, 2013 |
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2013 03:42
|
|
|
Throatwarbler posted:For models currently in production(that's what I meant, sorry) that's basically it. Subaru calls it VTD and it's basically a planetary center differential like the STi/SpecB, so it is "full time" AWD. It's not strictly tied to the 5 speed as they use to offer it as an option on the old 4 speed Outbacks too. Looked this up. The CVTs all have a 60/40 split. It is clutched, but it is full-time. The 90/10 or 80/20 is on the remaining 4 speeds excluding the forester, which has been 60/40 since 2009 (the forster also still offers a 5 speed auto with the VTD system and the CVT).
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2013 05:20
|
|
|
The Vikings posted:I am curious if that comment by another poster about the big Mazda service is accurate. I'll try to go look at one this weekend. I got a '13 CRV Ex-L for the girlfriend and while I prefer my Fit for noodling around town the CRV shines on longer trips. It drives more like a car than an SUV which I'm a big fan of and we get around 23 mpg city which was a big selling point. The interior materials are miles above the Fit and while I'm not a gadgets guy, the 3 way back-up camera, the green Eco mode halos and the in-dash information panel all show thoughtful design. The Eco mode is useful and rarely annoys me during highway passing but when it does it's just a button push to toggle it. My complaints: The navigation system is jank and you can save yourself a lot of hassle by just getting an exact address of where you are going off your phone and inputting it into the Nav system over telling it to search for U--Hauls and it "helpfully" listing U-Haul places three states over. Also it makes me rage that it disables inputting destinations as a passenger unless the car is stopped which leads to a lot of start and stop typing at stop lights. Once it has a place to go it's fine though. It holds significantly more than a Fit but with the Magic Seats folded down the headrests prevent the front seats from folding straight back so technically you can load significantly longer objects in the Fit. The CRV isn't exactly a slouch in this department though and you shouldn't have any problems with room for your 4 person skiing trips. The phone connectivity works well with the exception of sending receiving text messages if you have an iPhone, Apple doesn't support some thing or another that is required for it to work. You can make and receive calls from the button on the steering wheel, play music via Bluetooth and import addresses into the Nav system all day.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2013 06:46
|
|
|
ThisQuietReverie posted:I got a '13 CRV Ex-L for the girlfriend and while I prefer my Fit for noodling around town the CRV shines on longer trips. It drives more like a car than an SUV which I'm a big fan of and we get around 23 mpg city which was a big selling point. The interior materials are miles above the Fit and while I'm not a gadgets guy, the 3 way back-up camera, the green Eco mode halos and the in-dash information panel all show thoughtful design. The Eco mode is useful and rarely annoys me during highway passing but when it does it's just a button push to toggle it. Fun fact, if you have a crv or civic from last generation with the DVD based navi (where the DVD is in the head unit itself) you can play regular movie DVDs in it. I tried it out of random curiosity and it worked. Obviously, honda never advertised that feature, haha.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2013 07:43
|
|
|
I went out and test drove some cars today. My favorite was a 2014 Jeep Grand Cherokee  That's 10k more than I wanted to spend so I'm going to sit on it for awhile and continue to research and drive some other models.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2013 18:36
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 19, 2024 07:13 |
|
|
Math You posted:Just buy a roof rack. I just bought a CX-5 Touring (about 10 days ago) and it's great so far. It rides well, gets good gas mileage, and handles like a dream. The standard blind spot monitoring and backup camera are both far more useful than I thought they'd be. I did not get the optional Bose/Moonroof or Technology packages. The packages had a couple of features I wanted (namely, a moonroof, the Smart City Braking, and the fancy autoleveling/swiveling headlights) but the rest of the features I was entirely ambivalent about. Except the navigation. The navigation with the tech package was janky and barebones as all hell. It felt like a liability rather than a feature. I didn't feel that it was worth the ~2.5k premium to get the three things I wanted alongside half a dozen things I didn't care about and one feature I actively disliked. I also actively disliked the larger wheels on the Grand Touring. The ride was bumpier and noisier. Grand Touring comes standard with most of the optional features available for the Touring, and I didn't feel the greater expense was worth it there either. So stock Touring it was. I love the way it drives. I had a 2004 Mazda 6 wagon, and I wanted a new one. Sadly, they don't make the 6 in a wagon anymore. The CX-5 feels very similar to my wagon, but taller. I have no regrets so far. I also seriously considered a Honda CR-V, but it felt very utilitarian in comparison to the CX-5. For the things that mattered to me (handling, acceleration, all things driving really) it was far less fun than the Mazda. It got worse gas mileage and felt more like a truck than a car. The CR-V did have its perks (notably, far more cargo space) but I really didn't care about the things it did better than the CX-5. It was a very boring drive. I also spent some time with the Hyundai Tucson. I didn't do a lot of research on the Tucson, because about the time I started looking into it, Mazda got back to me with a great deal on the CX-5. However, on a test drive, the Tucson felt like it was the offspring of a Honda CR-V and a Mazda CX-5. In terms of features, handling, and aesthetics, it fit right between the two. I'm not sure what sort of reputation the Tucson has, but if you find yourself juggling the CX-5 and the CR-V, you might consider giving it a look.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2013 19:08
|
|
