Register a SA Forums Account here!
JOINING THE SA FORUMS WILL REMOVE THIS BIG AD, THE ANNOYING UNDERLINED ADS, AND STUPID INTERSTITIAL ADS!!!

You can: log in, read the tech support FAQ, or request your lost password. This dumb message (and those ads) will appear on every screen until you register! Get rid of this crap by registering your own SA Forums Account and joining roughly 150,000 Goons, for the one-time price of $9.95! We charge money because it costs us money per month for bills, and since we don't believe in showing ads to our users, we try to make the money back through forum registrations.
 
  • Post
  • Reply
vincentpricesboner
Sep 3, 2006

by LITERALLY AN ADMIN


JnnyThndrs posted:

I think the Pacifica looks better than other minivans and itís predecessor, but thatís a pretty low bar.



The Pacifica looks like an obese nissan murano, which is already an ugly car. Also anything with that post 2015 chrysler front badging/grill just looks like death to me.

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

Phone
Jul 30, 2005

ああ!彼からのメールだ!

Versus:




knox_harrington
Feb 18, 2011

Running no point.

Phone posted:

Ford F Stripped Chassis


Wow that looks straight out of the 50s.

My family had one (1) interesting car in my childhood which was a Gen2 Celica Supra in 2-tone silver/blue. Still think the design rules:

silence_kit
Jul 14, 2011


KillHour posted:

I would drive the absolute poo poo out of this.

Also, cars today look way better than they did in the 90s or 00s, and better than the regular (not sport or luxury cars) of the 70s or 80s.



Is this beautiful? No. But it's better than any of these





No way, this is totally backwards. The 80's and 90's Corolla images you are showing are much better looking cars than the 00's and recent Corollas. The 80's Corolla IMO is a really nice-looking car.

JnnyThndrs
May 29, 2001

HERE ARE THE FUCKING TOWELS

knox_harrington posted:


My family had one (1) interesting car in my childhood which was a Gen2 Celica Supra in 2-tone silver/blue. Still think the design rules:



I still think this was one of the nicest-looking non-exotic cars of the Ď80ís.

KYOON GRIFFEY JR
Apr 12, 2010




zapplez posted:



The Pacifica looks like an obese nissan murano, which is already an ugly car. Also anything with that post 2015 chrysler front badging/grill just looks like death to me.

dogg have u seen any other people carrier recently

it actually has lines that are coherent and resolve in interesting and pleasing shapes

KillHour
Oct 28, 2007






silence_kit posted:

No way, this is totally backwards. The 80's and 90's Corolla images you are showing are much better looking cars than the 00's and recent Corollas. The 80's Corolla IMO is a really nice-looking car.

You're so wrong that I refuse to believe you are a functioning human being. You probably put ranch on your wings.

The Oldest Man
Jul 28, 2003



Can someone summarize why Volvo has such trash-tier reliability?

Cascadia Pirate
Jan 18, 2011


The Oldest Man posted:

Can someone summarize why Volvo has such trash-tier reliability?

They were bought and sold like three times in a decade so there has been very little investment in R and D. This may change with their current owner in the long term however.

The Oldest Man
Jul 28, 2003



Cascadia Pirate posted:

They were bought and sold like three times in a decade so there has been very little investment in R and D. This may change with their current owner in the long term however.

Does that still apply to the new China-funded cars?

Cascadia Pirate
Jan 18, 2011


I think the current situation is they are getting lots of funding to develop new technologies and design better cars but I have no idea if that's showing up at the dealership yet. From what I have heard their SUVs are nice but still are not the most reliable but that's extremely antequdotal. I am really interested in their electric suv but I don't know much about it.

Guinness
Sep 15, 2004



First generation turbo and supercharged motors

Motronic
Nov 6, 2009



Grimey Drawer

Cascadia Pirate posted:

I think the current situation is they are getting lots of funding to develop new technologies and design better cars but I have no idea if that's showing up at the dealership yet. From what I have heard their SUVs are nice but still are not the most reliable but that's extremely antequdotal. I am really interested in their electric suv but I don't know much about it.

Even outside of reliability concerns, they've made some weird design choices that seem to feel a whole lot like first gen tech, or at least first gen to them and not quite understanding it. The most egregious example I can recall from a couple years ago when we were shopping for something new for my wife was the XC90 full glass cockpit. It looked nice and sharp on a cloudy day. On that very same cloudy day opening the gigantic shade that covers the (basically) entire-roof sized sunroof made seeing the screen on the stack nearly impossible and it became very difficult to make out the cluster. It was obvious the sales guy knew this as he tried a sales dude distraction while not so stealthily closing the sun shade.

Another "what the hell were you thinking?" in that particular vehicle was the rear headrests. There's a button up from that flings them FORWARD (for visibility when backing up?) with no way to put them back into place other than the equivalent of re-setting a mouse trap manually.

It seemed like a bunch of weird design decisions that were just "PUT IN ALL THE TECH SO WE CAN HAVE MORE CHECKBOXES" without any real thought of the utility or how it worked together or on that particular vehicle.

IOwnCalculus
Apr 2, 2003





Motronic posted:


Another "what the hell were you thinking?" in that particular vehicle was the rear headrests. There's a button up from that flings them FORWARD (for visibility when backing up?) with no way to put them back into place other than the equivalent of re-setting a mouse trap manually.

That one isn't a Volvo exclusive at least. Mercedes has done this too.

vincentpricesboner
Sep 3, 2006

by LITERALLY AN ADMIN


The Oldest Man posted:

Can someone summarize why Volvo has such trash-tier reliability?

They are like a VW in sometimes spotty quality parts / odd tech but they have nowhere near the mass production. They had some long lasting engines/chassis in the 80/90s but never really made a great reliable car in the past 20 years. They are too fringe to be reliable.

Look good and have great safety tech and would consider them if I was rich and didn't want to get a more common great car like a bmw or benz though.

IOwnCalculus
Apr 2, 2003





zapplez posted:

They are like a VW in sometimes spotty quality parts / odd tech but they have nowhere near the mass production. They had some long lasting engines/chassis in the 80/90s but never really made a great reliable car in the past 20 years. They are too fringe to be reliable.

More like 70s/80s. Aside from the tail end of the 2/7/900 series cars, nothing 90s Volvo was really considered particularly reliable even at the time.

Even then, in hindsight, I'd say the 240 earned its reputation as much due to how bad other cars were in the same era. My Ranger gave me less grief than my 240, but nobody rants about how reliable a late 90s Ferd is.

KYOON GRIFFEY JR
Apr 12, 2010




The Oldest Man posted:

Does that still apply to the new China-funded cars?

The new cars are egregiously unreliable. Lease.

JnnyThndrs
May 29, 2001

HERE ARE THE FUCKING TOWELS

IOwnCalculus posted:

My Ranger gave me less grief than my 240, but nobody rants about how reliable a late 90s Ferd is.

I dunno, when Iím around a bunch of fellow techs and the topic turns to reliable trucks, Rangers are always right up there with/near Toyota, and at a better price.

IOwnCalculus
Apr 2, 2003





JnnyThndrs posted:

I dunno, when I’m around a bunch of fellow techs and the topic turns to reliable trucks, Rangers are always right up there with/near Toyota, and at a better price.

Completely agreed. The only Tacos I could find here for $2500 or less were utter poo poo boxes with over a quarter million miles and late 80s at newest. Most of the fuckery I had to deal with was poorly executed PO repairs.

Impossibly Perfect Sphere
Nov 6, 2002


zapplez posted:



The Pacifica looks like an obese nissan murano, which is already an ugly car. Also anything with that post 2015 chrysler front badging/grill just looks like death to me.

That is orders of magnitude better than this thing.



Just look at that rear end.

I'm kinda partial to the boxy look of the Tahoe.

Cascadia Pirate
Jan 18, 2011


Jiminy Christmas! Shoes! posted:

That is orders of magnitude better than this thing.



Just look at that rear end.

I'm kinda partial to the boxy look of the Tahoe.



The way the rear window just jags lower bugs the poo poo out of me

JnnyThndrs
May 29, 2001

HERE ARE THE FUCKING TOWELS

Cascadia Pirate posted:

The way the rear window just jags lower bugs the poo poo out of me

Likewise.

Jack B Nimble
Dec 25, 2007




Soiled Meat

Is that because of beltlines for passenger safety?

Impossibly Perfect Sphere
Nov 6, 2002


Jack B Nimble posted:

Is that because of beltlines for passenger safety?

It's the sliding door track, but unlike every other manufacturer they decided not to hide it.

Edit: I guess that IS hidden in the 2018 model now and they've softened up the zig a bit in the window.



It still has a giant rear end.

Impossibly Perfect Sphere fucked around with this message at 17:38 on Dec 26, 2018

vincentpricesboner
Sep 3, 2006

by LITERALLY AN ADMIN


Just because a Pacifica is a better looking minivan, compared to others, doesn't mean its a good looking vehicle. Its still a 3 out of 10. I dont care that the competition is a bunch of 1s or 2s.

CannonFodder
Jan 26, 2001



Passion’s Wrench

zapplez posted:

Just because a Pacifica is a better looking minivan, compared to others, doesn't mean its a good looking vehicle. Its still a 3 out of 10. I dont care that the competition is a bunch of 1s or 2s.

Well Fiat is bringing cars to the US again, maybe they can bring over the Multipla!



Yes I know they have a redesign where it's not so bugeyed and it's not even a sliding door minivan, but boy howdy is this an ugly car.

The Third Man
Nov 5, 2005

I know how much you like ponies so I got you a ponies avatar bro


My wife hit a deer and AAA is totally her 2011 Malibu. I'm looking to get the safest, most reliable car I can within the $10K range, so right now I'm considering a used 2012/2013 Subaru Legacy with around 100K miles on the clock(we're in Michigan, so AWD is a plus, but not a requirement). I'm not averse to doing certain maintenance items myself so I'm not scared off by the mileage as long as I can find one with a solid service history. Are there any other cars I should be looking at?

Deteriorata
Feb 6, 2005
NOBODY HAS SUFFERED AS MUCH AS BOOMERS AND I WILL DEFEND THEM TO MY LAST BREATH

The Third Man posted:

My wife hit a deer and AAA is totally her 2011 Malibu. I'm looking to get the safest, most reliable car I can within the $10K range, so right now I'm considering a used 2012/2013 Subaru Legacy with around 100K miles on the clock(we're in Michigan, so AWD is a plus, but not a requirement). I'm not averse to doing certain maintenance items myself so I'm not scared off by the mileage as long as I can find one with a solid service history. Are there any other cars I should be looking at?

If your primary criterion is reliability, a Subaru is not a good choice. They're not terrible, but mid-pack on reliability. Full-time AWD adds weight, complexity, and friction that you pay for in gas and breakdowns.

Look for a Prius and snow tires.

vincentpricesboner
Sep 3, 2006

by LITERALLY AN ADMIN


The Third Man posted:

My wife hit a deer and AAA is totally her 2011 Malibu. I'm looking to get the safest, most reliable car I can within the $10K range, so right now I'm considering a used 2012/2013 Subaru Legacy with around 100K miles on the clock(we're in Michigan, so AWD is a plus, but not a requirement). I'm not averse to doing certain maintenance items myself so I'm not scared off by the mileage as long as I can find one with a solid service history. Are there any other cars I should be looking at?

Buy the newest year car you can afford., under 75k miles, of either a


2014/2015 Malibu if you want to stick with chev (least reliable of these but still not a bad car)
2012+ Corolla
2010+ Camry
Any civic
2012+ elantra
2012+ sonata
Any prius if you dont mind the bubble butt

AWD is going to be tough at that price range, maintenance and gas is going to cost more as well.

If you give me your postal or zip code I'll give you a few examples.

Nitrox
Jul 5, 2002

Slur, your fighting style is extremely problematic!

I just noticed that all of the posted minivan photos are taken from the perspective of a 9 year old. poo poo looks way different when you're seeing those same cars in person as an average adult.

vincentpricesboner
Sep 3, 2006

by LITERALLY AN ADMIN


To start you research. I havent double checked the dealer info, if these have been in collisions, etc. Do more research, but to give you an idea...

2014 elantra
https://www.autotrader.com/cars-for...ickType=listing

2011 camry
https://www.autotrader.com/cars-for...ickType=listing

2013 corolla
https://www.autotrader.com/cars-for...ickType=listing

2015 malibu
https://www.autotrader.com/cars-for...ickType=listing

Malibu will have the best infotainment. Corolla will be cheapest to run. Camry is probably what I'd buy because its comfortable and have decent to drive compared to the rest.

edit: and if you heart is really set on Sube, save up an extra 2 grand...

https://www.autotrader.com/cars-for...ickType=listing

mariooncrack
Dec 27, 2008


The Third Man posted:

My wife hit a deer and AAA is totally her 2011 Malibu. I'm looking to get the safest, most reliable car I can within the $10K range, so right now I'm considering a used 2012/2013 Subaru Legacy with around 100K miles on the clock(we're in Michigan, so AWD is a plus, but not a requirement). I'm not averse to doing certain maintenance items myself so I'm not scared off by the mileage as long as I can find one with a solid service history. Are there any other cars I should be looking at?

Deteriorata posted:

If your primary criterion is reliability, a Subaru is not a good choice. They're not terrible, but mid-pack on reliability. Full-time AWD adds weight, complexity, and friction that you pay for in gas and breakdowns.

Adding onto what Deteriorata said, I believe those years were also part of a class action lawsuit against Subaru for excessive oil consumption. Subaru extended the warranty on the motors to 100k so anything past that is not covered under warranty. I would avoid unless you want to constantly be dumping oil into said car or replacing the short block.

Not sure if you need to replace the water pump/timing belt on later Subarus.

Guinness
Sep 15, 2004



The new AWD Prius is going to eat the market (and this thread)

Frankly Iím amazed it took Toyota so long to do it. Been saying itíd be a no-brained forever. AWD is so in vogue right now, even if totally unnecessary for most people.

If they did a Prius ďcrosstrekĒ itíd be seriously game over for the boring but highly practical segment. I know the RAV4 is kinda that already but even the hybrid is fatter and less efficient than the Prius.

Literally Lewis Hamilton
Feb 22, 2005

#JusticeForBreonnaTaylor
#BlackLivesMatter
#StillIRise
#Blessed




Itís amazing the amount of cars I see with AWD, even in places where it never snows. My friend got an AWD Tesla because they thought it did better in the rain. Itís crazy effective for sales.

vincentpricesboner
Sep 3, 2006

by LITERALLY AN ADMIN


Its actually pretty amazing how many "car people" have no idea the benefits of AWD (or lack thereof) and believe in the mythos of the snow subaru. If you actually have taken a driver safety course its remarkably simple to prevent yourself from ending up in a ditch. I commute 40,000 km a year , a ton of that in snowy conditions and have never got a car or truck stuck once, or had a MVC in the winter over the past 10 years of driving. From a small car like a Corolla to large cars like Impalas and Allures, to RAM 1500s and Equinoxs and Rogues etc etc.

First rule of snow is traction. Buy winter tires. You cant get around this. Just do it.
Second rule is understand traction. When you are in a bend in the road, you don't want to do anything to reduce your grip. In a turn, you should not be braking and not be accelerating to give you the best chance of maintaining your grip. Brake before the turn if you have any doubt you are travelling unsafe for the conditions.
Follow weather reports, do your best to avoid driving in freezing rain.
Anticipate the most likely times other cars will cause a crash. If you are on the highway and a car is driving aggressively, changing multiple lanes and speeding in snow conditions, stay well,well back of them.
Approaching a red light or stop sign intersection, proceed slowly enough to compensate if a vehicle from the opposite way cant stop and will blow through it.

And if possible, practice emergency braking and learn how fast you car REALLY stops at 40km/h, 80km/h, etc. Go to a parking lot or whatever and find out (holy poo poo, I need 250 feet of room between me and the next car to follow safely!)

The only real benefit of having AWD / 4WD is if you need to get started from a stop on unplowed/offroads. And towing.

IOwnCalculus
Apr 2, 2003





Tesla AWD is a somewhat different story since they accomplish it by putting motors in both ends of the car, so there are reasons to get one (i.e. more power) other than just driving all four wheels.

I can see going for AWD if they use it as a gatekeeper for other features. For example, the Honda Pilot / Ridgeline platform is rated to tow 5000lb in AWD, but only 3500lb in FWD.

On my CR-V? gently caress no. It adds nothing but weight. It's a system so gimped that realistically it's probably not any better than the FWD's traction control.

I don't have much snow experience but it's split about 50/50 between "AWD with snow-rated tires" and "2WD with summers or all seasons". I will admit that AWD and snow tires feels like god mode.

Something Offal
Jan 11, 2018

by FactsAreUseless


IOwnCalculus posted:

Tesla AWD is a somewhat different story since they accomplish it by putting motors in both ends of the car, so there are reasons to get one (i.e. more power) other than just driving all four wheels.

I can see going for AWD if they use it as a gatekeeper for other features. For example, the Honda Pilot / Ridgeline platform is rated to tow 5000lb in AWD, but only 3500lb in FWD.

On my CR-V? gently caress no. It adds nothing but weight. It's a system so gimped that realistically it's probably not any better than the FWD's traction control.

I don't have much snow experience but it's split about 50/50 between "AWD with snow-rated tires" and "2WD with summers or all seasons". I will admit that AWD and snow tires feels like god mode.

If you drive the CR-V in heavy snow you'd probably come around. I've managed to get FWD cars stuck (had to push them forward from the rear) even though the tires had good traction, particularly when the snow is so packed and frozen that no tires reliably make asphalt contact, on side streets that haven't been plowed. AWD is just god mode in those situations, although you have to have a good knowledge of throttle control etc.

Then again those situations are so rare in most US locations, few times a year at most that it's hard to argue the average person needs it. Those few times a year I'm glad I splurged though. Because I know from experience that I'd likely be stuck in FWD.

Something Offal fucked around with this message at 22:19 on Dec 28, 2018

vincentpricesboner
Sep 3, 2006

by LITERALLY AN ADMIN


Something Offal posted:

If you drive the CR-V in heavy snow you'd probably come around. I've managed to get FWD cars stuck (had to push them forward from the rear) even though the tires had good traction, particularly when the snow is so packed and frozen that no tires reliably make asphalt contact, on side streets that haven't been plowed. AWD is just god mode in those situations, although you have to have a good knowledge of throttle control etc.

Then again those situations are so rare in most US locations, few times a year at most that it's hard to argue the average person needs it. Those few times a year I'm glad I splurged though. Because I know from experience that I'd likely be stuck in FWD.

You got it stuck with snow tires made in the past 5 years? Or all seasons

edit: The real problem with AWD is many people think because it helps them accelerate easier, it also helps turning and braking, and then they end up dead in a ditch.

Duck and Cover
Apr 6, 2007


zapplez posted:

Its actually pretty amazing how many "car people" have no idea the benefits of AWD (or lack thereof) and believe in the mythos of the snow subaru. If you actually have taken a driver safety course its remarkably simple to prevent yourself from ending up in a ditch. I commute 40,000 km a year , a ton of that in snowy conditions and have never got a car or truck stuck once, or had a MVC in the winter over the past 10 years of driving. From a small car like a Corolla to large cars like Impalas and Allures, to RAM 1500s and Equinoxs and Rogues etc etc.

First rule of snow is traction. Buy winter tires. You cant get around this. Just do it.
Second rule is understand traction. When you are in a bend in the road, you don't want to do anything to reduce your grip. In a turn, you should not be braking and not be accelerating to give you the best chance of maintaining your grip. Brake before the turn if you have any doubt you are travelling unsafe for the conditions.
Follow weather reports, do your best to avoid driving in freezing rain.
Anticipate the most likely times other cars will cause a crash. If you are on the highway and a car is driving aggressively, changing multiple lanes and speeding in snow conditions, stay well,well back of them.
Approaching a red light or stop sign intersection, proceed slowly enough to compensate if a vehicle from the opposite way cant stop and will blow through it.

And if possible, practice emergency braking and learn how fast you car REALLY stops at 40km/h, 80km/h, etc. Go to a parking lot or whatever and find out (holy poo poo, I need 250 feet of room between me and the next car to follow safely!)

The only real benefit of having AWD / 4WD is if you need to get started from a stop on unplowed/offroads. And towing.

Take a course? Practice? Anticipate? Hahahahaha. Yeah good luck with getting people to do that. I however do think people will use AWD if they have it. Now excuse me as I don't get my snows for my non AWD car because I'm lazy.

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

IOwnCalculus
Apr 2, 2003





Something Offal posted:

If you drive the CR-V in heavy snow you'd probably come around. I've managed to get FWD cars stuck (had to push them forward from the rear) even though the tires had good traction, particularly when the snow is so packed and frozen that no tires reliably make asphalt contact, on side streets that haven't been plowed. AWD is just god mode in those situations, although you have to have a good knowledge of throttle control etc.

Then again those situations are so rare in most US locations, few times a year at most that it's hard to argue the average person needs it. Those few times a year I'm glad I splurged though. Because I know from experience that I'd likely be stuck in FWD.

The CR-V's AWD is laughably bad, though. If the front tires have zero traction, it just cuts all power, period. Everything on the rear portion of the CR-V drivetrain is sized so small that it can't handle 100% of the engine's power.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jkiv-bWbLIo

The AWD systems I have driven in snow were an early P2 V70 XC, and my Jeep Grand Cherokee with Quadradrive. Proper mechanical systems that, at least on the Jeep, can send drat near full power to any one wheel if needed.

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • Post
  • Reply