|
dreesemonkey posted:Accords/Camrys have a few things that put them at the top of the list: All midsize cars sell in quantities enough. None of them are particularly rare. quote:2. I'm at the point where I think a reputation of building a really solid and dependable car model over a 30 year period is worth a price increase. Nothing I say will convince you otherwise, but as long as you understand that you're essentially basing yout $10k purchase purely on superstition. quote:3. Generally speaking the honda/toyota cars have a big leg up in build quality. They're not fancy luxury cars, but they are built well (I wouldn't even consider a dodge/chrysler vehicle in the year range we could afford). As a whole Honda and Toyota make some incredibly reliable cars with very few "lemon" models. Where as to pick on Dodge for instance, LOL headgaskets, LOL fwd transmissions across many models in their line over the years. You are not buying the entire Toyota model lineup, you are just buying one car. For example, the 2005 6 cyl Camry you list is well known for having massive problems with engine sludge. When the engine fails, it will be little consolation to you that Toyota's other models are very reliable. I would pretty much *only* consider Chrysler and Dodge vehicles in the price ranges you list, since for the same price, you can get a much newer, lower mileage Dodge or Chrysler. Do I recommend ALL Chrysler products? Nope. It may even be true that across the entire model line, Chrysler makes more "bad" cars than Toyota does, but I am not buying Chrysler's entire model line. There are resources online to help you determine which models are lemons and which are not. quote:4. Japanese manufacturers have always done pretty well with engineering/r&d/economy. It's only been the last 5-7 years for domestics to wake up and say "oh poo poo, our lovely cars can't compete" and start to make better cars. The new nice cars are still probably at the top of my price range, and I may (illogically?) considering them to be "too new" to wonder how dependable they are. Not that I even agree with any of this, but for the price range you speak of, you can buy plenty of domestics built within the last 5-7 years anyway.
|
#
¿
May 20, 2011 19:59
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 24, 2024 08:52 |
|
|
sanchez posted:What mid-late 00's midsize Chrysler/Dodge sedan wasn't a piece of poo poo? He should get that 01 Camry or something similar (stick with the 4cyl) and drive it forever. The Sebring, Stratus and Avenger from that era are all perfectly reliable cars, with double wishbone front and multi-link rear suspension while most competitors used cheaper Macpherson struts. I live in a very heavy Chrysler/Dodge city, and everyone I know who have had Sebrings, often multiple generations, have had excellent reliability.
|
|
#
¿
May 20, 2011 21:02
|
|
|
sanchez posted:Why do they get such horrible survey rankings then? Perhaps because you live in a heavy Chrysler/Dodge city your bar for excellent reliability is lower. Even if they were reliable the Sebring is still a pig to drive. The Impala is a full size. You wanted to talk about Chrysler Mid-size sedans. http://consumerguideauto.howstuffworks.com/2001-to-2006-chrysler-sebring-2.htm http://www.autos.ca/used-car-reviews/used-vehicle-review-chrysler-sebring-2001-2005 The JR body style Sebring has no serious reliability issues with its drive train, some minor electrical issues are confined to the 2001-3 model years and are largely absent from the later half of the model cycle. You can get a 05-06 Sebring for half the price of an equivalent Camry or Accord, so who cares if you experience 1 or 2 more minor problems? I've had my Intrepid for almost 2 years now, the one problem I've had (bad camshaft position sensor) I fixed with $60 worth of parts and about an hour of labour in my driveway. Boy I sure regret not spending an extra $4,000 to get a 2 year older Accord with 2x the mileage! Throatwarbler fucked around with this message at 21:54 on May 20, 2011 |
|
#
¿
May 20, 2011 21:51
|
|
|
CornHolio posted:Bullshit. The chrysler 2.7L had some very nasty sludging issues and I don't think they ever fixed it. The 3.5 isn't bad though I think it's getting old. The design of the water pump and oil pan was revised after around 2001 which supposedly solved the problem. Keep up with synthetic oil changes every 3k miles and it should be fine. As with all cars of this type, the 4 cyl with manual transmission is really the best way to go if you want reliability.
|
|
#
¿
May 21, 2011 07:28
|
|
|
CornHolio posted:http://www.oilsludge.com The transmission problems had also been fixed at that point. I'm not saying you should buy a 1999-02 V6 Sebring(generally, depends on the price really). But you can get an 05-06 Sebring for much less money than a similar year Camry and it will be just as reliable, especially if you get a I4 manual.
|
|
#
¿
May 21, 2011 18:59
|
|
|
kimbo305 posted:Wait a minute... should even a top spec Cruze be that much? I think he's Canadian, on gm.ca if you go for the top trim with almost every option (sunroof, nav, illuminated door sill) it's about that much, but yeah, that's pretty much the carbon brakes edition because the base model Cruze is $14k
|
|
#
¿
Jul 17, 2011 03:25
|
|
|
NOTinuyasha posted:Both are disappointing because a manual is only available with the base trims. The Cruze automatic is ok, the Focus automatic is a pile of poo poo. It's slightly smaller than the Cruze, so I guess that makes the Cruze a full size sedan? It also doesn't have as good an interior, no automatic air conditioning, no park assist, oxcart suspension, the manual trans is only a 5 speed and the fuel economy is quite a bit worse.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 17, 2011 07:04
|
|
|
sanchez posted:You can buy a well optioned 4cyl Accord or a less optioned v6 Accord or a Sonata with or without turbo for a similar price, perhaps a little more for the Hondas. Both the Accord and the Sonata are significantly more expensive when equipped at a similar level as the Cruze, get significantly worse fuel economy, the Accord is a dated design with worse crash safety ratings and a 5 speed transmission. Unless you regularly need to carry fat NBA players in the back I don't see the appeal of either at all.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 17, 2011 16:05
|
|
|
sanchez posted:I would not have posted them if that was the case. The top spec (EX-L and Limited) Accord and Sonata are both right around 25k. If you can do without leather the EX and normal Sonata are less. I had a dealer down to 23k on a Sonata turbo. From Honda's website:  To get to the same specs, the Accord adds backup sensors and the Cruze adds moonroof. He didn't say but I 'm assuming to get the Cruze up to $27k he added nav. The Accord EX-L with nav is over $30k. If you want to compare the base model Accord , the base Cruze starts at $16k MSRP. EDIT: Here's with nav. I think in this one the Cruze also includes the upgraded stereo.  The Cruze price changed slightly for 2012 by a few hundred bucks IIRC, Honda's comparison thing just didn't have all the specs for the '12 Cruze yet. Throatwarbler fucked around with this message at 01:58 on Jul 18, 2011 |
|
#
¿
Jul 18, 2011 01:52
|
|
|
Sym posted:Anyone able to educate me on the GMC Acadia. Sounds kind of expensive. Is it AWD or FWD? AWD should be closer to $23-25k, FWD a couple K less than that. Here's pricing info on a 2008 Enclave. http://www.vmrcanada.com/value_menus/canprices/08buenve.html They don't have enough info on the Acadia so that's the closest equvilant. Also you are probably aware but the Chevy Traverse, Buick Enclave, and Saturn Outlook are all essentially the same cars and worthy of consideration, especially the Saturn since with the brand's shuttering, resale values have take a hit (granted it was a cheaper truck to begin with and not as well equipped). Throatwarbler fucked around with this message at 20:16 on Jul 21, 2011 |
|
#
¿
Jul 21, 2011 20:13
|
|
|
Also, Vancouver isn't that far from the US, so you can search in places like Seattle and whatnot too, for greater selection. All those trucks are freely importable to Canada(you do have to pay GST at the border) so that should widen your selection at least.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 21, 2011 20:30
|
|
|
Saltin posted:
For the most part, car dealers don't make very much money on new car sales. They make a decent amount on used cars but most of their money comes from parts and service.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 29, 2011 20:52
|
|
|
Our Gay Apparel posted:Anyway, reliability is important, as we will probably be somewhere a decent distance from any dealerships. That makes me lean towards the 4Runner, but she loves Land Rovers. If she loves LRs, they buy her a LR. What's the problem? The point of making money is to buy poo poo you love. I would say probably 90% of LR buyers are women. I've read loads of reviews where the male reviewer noted the surprising amount of interest from female friends and cowokers. I think there's just something about LR's styling that trips a switch in the female brain. As far as reliability and value goes, here's the deal: 1) Vehicles of all makes that have extensive offroad equipment/are meant for offroad performance tend to score poorly in reliability surveys compared to commuter cars. Especially if the vehicle is also designed with a mind for on-road performance as well, which LRs mostly are. The old Grand Cherokee wasn't exactly a Consumer Reports darling either. Neither was the Wrangler or Mercedes G-wagen. It may be just the nature of the beast that if you want complicated 4WD with a 2 speed transfer case, air suspension, active anti-rollbars and a fully boxed frame, nothing on the market is going to be as problem free as a bog standard Honda Accord. Looking on Truedelta, the GC isn't really any more problem free than the LR4, and I say this as a Chrysler owner with a soft spot for all things Chrysler. Toyota does make the Land Cruiser and lexus GX/LX, but they don't really sell a lot of them in the US so although they have a good reputation, reliability information is hard to come by. More on this below. 2) LRs all have terrible resale value so you should be buying used as a matter of course, but even new, the LR4 is pretty reasonably priced for what you get, starting at $47k MSRP. By comparison a new Grand Cherokee loaded up to similar spec (4x4, air suspension, etc) is easily almost $50k as well. It's quite cheap compared to the Land Cruiser which starts at close to $70k, the LX570 which starts at $80k, or GX460 which starts at $57k, with a much weaker 300hp 4.6l engine. Considering the Lexus/Toyotas use signfiicantly cheaper and simpler live rear axles compared to the sophisiticated independent rear suspension of the LR (or GC for that matter), and are otherwise much less well equipped, one would *hope* that the Toyotas are much more reliable - you're paying a shitload more money for a more spartan vehicle. This is reflected in sales. as indicated, the Toyota Land Cruiser family sells in extremely small numbers compared to the Land Rover LR4 and Ranger Rover families. I would say go for it, especially used. Given that the Toyotas hold their value on the used market well due to the small sales numbers, the LR is a better deal even if Land Rovers are really as bad as people say and Toyotas are really as good as people say, which isn't a given. Throatwarbler fucked around with this message at 17:45 on Aug 29, 2011 |
|
#
¿
Aug 29, 2011 17:39
|
|
|
Our Gay Apparel posted:Yeah, looks like I'll go with the Land Rover. Now she just has to decide which model she wants. So, should I pay cash, or build up credit history by financing it? You should try to steer her towards the LR4 or Range Rover Sport (they are somewhat similar vehicles). The LR2/Freelander isn't really a "real" Land Rover, it's a car body/engine based on a Volvo/Ford front wheel drive car, developed under Ford ownership as an economy model. Basically you are buying all of a Land Rover's reliability problems with none of the benefits - she'd be better off with the 4Runner or Jeep.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 29, 2011 21:54
|
|
|
chiyosdad posted:That sounds like a great rule if you're living paycheck to paycheck but my goal is to minimize my total payment over the entire course of the lease. I don't want to have to pay interest on the lease because I know I'm going to get dicked in the face. You're right about the first bit of depreciation being the biggest, though. Hmm. The car maker websites usually have calculators to figure out payments and stuff. Yes you pay interest on the residual. There are ways to offset this with luxury cars like BMWs and Audis, usually called a "multiple deposit" or some such, where you pay them money in the form of a deposit and get an interest offset, and at the end of the lease they return it to you. I don't think this is common with Hondas though. If you are OK with a $5k car then buy a $5k car. Hell why not buy a $3k car and save yourself $2k? If you have more time than money, go read AI and learn about cars and then you won't feel so lost with a used car.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 18, 2011 19:05
|
|
|
The new Wrangler with the 300hp V6 and 6 speed manual *is* pretty awesome. Plus Wranglers have some of the highest residuals in the industry. If you were going to buy any new car you could do much worse.
Throatwarbler fucked around with this message at 19:54 on Dec 20, 2011 |
|
#
¿
Dec 20, 2011 19:51
|
|
|
Which Wrangler are you looking at, 2 doors or 4? I would think California would be a nice climate with the Wrangler's soft top. The base model manual trans 4x4 Wrangler and Compass are about the same price so I would go with the Wrangler.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 20, 2011 20:31
|
|
|
DarkestLite posted:2 Definitely. The four door looks too Hummer-y to me. The problem is, I really want the GPS and it looks like they want an extra $1000+ because you need to get the all out media center package. Chrysler's Uconnect system is generally regarded as the best in the business although the Wrangler doesn't get the huge 8" screen that the 300 and Charger comes with. Chrysler/Fiat uses it in most of their cars, it's pretty good. I think you should go for it.   
Throatwarbler fucked around with this message at 21:05 on Dec 20, 2011 |
|
#
¿
Dec 20, 2011 20:55
|
|
|
Buy a BMW so you can talk about YOUR BMW[series][trim level][option package][mods][more] in every thread.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 21, 2011 19:45
|
|
|
Zuph posted:I posted to the general questions thread, I guess I'll bring it here for more specific wisdom: Go here and find an aggregated listing of cars by their crash test results in both the IIHS and NHTSA tests. The Nissan Versa is by far the most unsafe car sold in America, the Honda Fit and the Hyundai Accent are sort of OK but not great, the Ford Fiesta is pretty good and the Chevy Sonic is very, very good, The Mazda2 hasn't been tested extensively yet but will probably be similar to the Fiesta as they have similar underpinnings, same with the Kia Rio(with the Hyundai Accent). The Toyota Yaris is also too new to have been tested extensively but generally has a good record and Toyotas other 2012s have been very good so one could expect it to be at least pretty good. Cars in this category aren't all that luxurious or fast and most shoppers aren't really looking for that sort of thing, but I think almost everyone, even if they don't care about cars at all, would rather be in a safe car. Not to mention by most accounts the Chevy Sonic is actually the most luxurious in any case, and when equipped with the turbo engine and manual transmission also the fastest, most fuel efficient and fun, but you can go determine that yourself with a test drive.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 2, 2012 19:12
|
|
|
skipdogg posted:Those are super interesting numbers. I'm pretty terrible with numbers and can barely count to 10 without a computer, so it's easier for me to explain with inductive reasoning than calculations. What he's got there is a really round about way of saying that if your opportunity cost is 1% and a loan costs you 6% then you shouldn't take the loan. Both a car loan and a lease are forms of leverage, a lease is more leveraged than a loan(usually, see bolded paragraph 2) because with a loan, you pay the whole principle in 3 years while a lease you only pay off the depreciation of the car. So if your money costs 1% and the loan is 6% then the more money you borrow the more you pay. Of course the opposite is also true, if your opportunity cost is higher than the rate on the loan then the more leverage you take on the better off you are. You need to evaluate what your actual opportunity cost is, it's usually not the rate on bank deposits. For example do you have any other debt like a mortgage? If you do and you can pre-pay it then your opportunity cost is at least the rate on your mortgage, or student loan, or credit card, which is probably higher than 1%. To throw a further wrench into the equation, Most car companies, especially the luxury marques, have an additional option where you can place additional cash down in the form of one or more deposits that is returned at the end of the lease. So if your opportunity cost is actually lower than the rate on the loan, you can basically "put money into the loan" and make at least the cost of the loan. Sort of as if you were lending money to Mercedes Benz instead of the other way around. With this you can tailor your leverage ratio to pretty much exactly what you need. (ed: Bolded this section because I've never talked about it in past posts.) As your opportunity cost and the rate on the loan converge, the delta between the lease and the loan approaches 0. The difference, if there is one, is the "premium" you are paying for your option to dispose of the car for a set price in the future. So you would have to consider that there is a variance on the future resale you might receive on the car and that your option is a hedge against this variance. In your example, your lease says your Mercedes is worth exactly $34,200 at the end of the lease, but obviously that's only an estimate and every single example doesn't sell for exactly that figure, and what your particular car might sell for on the used market could be higher or lower. It's not implausible to me that your car may, for example, only fetch 95% of their estimated value, in which case if you owned the car outright and were selling, you would be down $1700 from where you were expecting. If you had leased the car, you would be protected from this downside , but still gain from variance in the opposite direction, since if you can sell it for 105% of the residual, you can still do so. Maybe you can start building some kind of Black-Scholes option pricing model to determine exactly what the option would be worth, but that's probably trying to wring more useful information out of the numbers than actually exists. Suffice to know that it exists and has a value greater than 0. Other than that there's no real way to evaluate your example further, since there are so many more variables that you can only really uncover by going to the dealership and figuring out what your actual transaction prices for the car are. Car makers will often have additional incentives and whatnot on top of both lease and purchase financing deals, and all through this you are assuming that the residual given by the leasing company are even accurate and not being inflated by the car manufacturer to boost sales. Throatwarbler fucked around with this message at 22:40 on Feb 3, 2012 |
|
#
¿
Feb 3, 2012 22:32
|
|
|
The problem with this and also the OP is that you are mixing subjective value judgements with purely financial considerations and it doesn't help anyone. "From a purely financial point of view, buying a used car is the best deal because you avoid paying the initial massive depreciation." is a meaningless statement because no one actually thinks used cars and new cars are equivilant in value, otherwise they wouldn't be different in price. Leasing 2 cars for 3 years each is not the same thing as buying one car and keeping it for 6 years, prime rib is different from hamburger, telling people to stop eating prime rib and stick to hamburger or to not buy the Mercedes and stick with a used Cavalier isn't financial advice. The statement about "high level of discipline" is also useless and paternalistic and akin to the old pre-housing bubble admonishment that housing is a forced savings scheme. Maybe I'd rather have 2 Mercedes than extra money and maybe I'd rather have my next meth hit than a house, who are you to judge? I said nothing about it the first time you posted because I was sick of the argument. The various options for security deposits within a lease will allow you to adjust your leverage ratio depending on what your opportunity cost is. I don't think they technically allow you to, say, pay for the whole car up front and just have the option to return the car at the end of a specified period, but there is enough flexibility that if you *did* want to pay more up front you can still lease. EDIT: I've posted this before, but relatively speaking, this is the worst time in history to be a used car shopper. You know how it was common knowledge that house prices only went up and housing was always a great investment until it wasn't? Yeah, if everyone is doing something because it's common knowledge it's probably time to start heading the other way. Throatwarbler fucked around with this message at 23:57 on Feb 3, 2012 |
|
#
¿
Feb 3, 2012 23:55
|
|
|
Daeus posted:I think it is a fair assumption that the companies financing this have done this calculation very carefully and aside from the one time where SUV's plummeted due to gas spikes, are pretty good at ensuring a profit for themselves (just like an insurance company). This is another thing that I've already addressed previously. Why would you assume any such thing? Leasing companies are usually branches of car makers and car makers have all kinds of ways to make money, such as "sell you a car for more than it cost them to make" or "let's get rid of these unpopular cars because keeping them around waiting for the right buyer is going to loving cost us more in inventory costs Jesus Christ!". Sometimes they don't even get it right and end up losing money! You are making a very much unfounded assumption about the hugely complicated cost structure of car companies and you don't need to. Just concentrate on how much you are paying.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 4, 2012 00:08
|
|
|
Daeus posted:You do realize you're in BFC and not AI, right? The entire point of this subforum is to make the best financial decisions. So my posts are not finance-ey enough? I recommend you buy a 10 year old Mazda Miata and a shock dyno so you can revalve your own dampers. quote:You'll note that even in the 0% loan case it's still cheaper to buy, sell after three years, and buy again than it is to take two back to back leases. What? Yes, 0% is lower than 6%. Even I can figure that out without a spreadsheet. quote:Obviously some people value being in a new car more and are willing to pay a premium for it. Depending on market conditions, how much extra that costs varies. I never was judging anyone for what they wanted to spend their money (not sure where you got this idea). But this being BFC, we are generally in the business of helping people with the financial aspect of their decisions. In fact just yesterday, in this same thread, I recommended should Zuph buy a new car if he wanted. You've just posted a wall of text and literally made a spreadsheet in an attempt to prove that new cars are more expensive than second hand cars. Can you do one for clothes too? How about furniture? I must know whether it's cheaper to buy a new couch or just pick up a used one off craigslist. Please include discounted cash flow analysis to calculate the net present value quote:As for the discount rate, it is not accurate to say "Oh, well if I put the money in my mortgage I'd get 5% return so I'll use that as my discount rate" and then instead spend it on something else. It's not being being 'paternalistic' to say if you are going to make that assumption you need to follow through on it for the assumption to be valid. If I get 5% on my mortgage and I spend the money on something else instead, then the something else was worth more to me than 5%.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 4, 2012 07:17
|
|
|
Oh no, I better go back to AI where everyone leases new cars!  (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
¿
Feb 4, 2012 08:59
|
|
|
TraderStav posted:So it would likely make sense for me to take my mom's 02 Accord with around 140k off her hands then? I'm thinking it'll be about 3-4k, and it's in pretty good shape. I believe it has a new transmission, but something is leaking that could cost a grand. I think even if I had to fix that, I'd come out quite ahead. Do you like your mom? 01-02 Accords all had massive transmission problems as she's found out already, so maybe you should dump it while this transmission is still good and get something a bit more reliable?
|
|
#
¿
Feb 10, 2012 06:12
|
|
|
Zuph posted:To follow up on this, I've now actually driven all of these cars, and the Sonic is the only one that really grabbed me. The Fiesta felt claustrophobic, the Accent felt cheap, the Mazda2 was fun in the corners, but a lot less fun on the freeway, and the Versa was big, comfy and cheap, but really boring. The Sonic was fun to drive (but not as fun as the Mazda2), had good interior fit-and-finish (but not as good as the Fiesta). I was not expecting to like this car so much.  My cheque better be in the mail, GM!
|
|
#
¿
Feb 12, 2012 01:36
|
|
|
The only reason why anyone would buy a Panther platform car is if you need to store people or prodigious amounts of guns in the trunk, like cops do. It's a terrible car in every other way. It's true they're not unreliable for the most part, but that's also true for any number of other cars that are better in every other way because they're not Carter-era dinosaurs. EDIT: Also anything with air suspension that's not a Lexus is going to bleed you dry with repair costs. Throatwarbler fucked around with this message at 08:06 on Feb 17, 2012 |
|
#
¿
Feb 17, 2012 08:03
|
|
|
Our Gay Apparel posted:The GX is the luxury version of the Land Cruiser Prado, the LX is the luxury version of the full size Land Cruiser. Both are proven and reliable. I think it will most likely be what I end up getting her. Only downside is the gas mileage. For the money you're looking at you could get into a brand new Jeep Grand Cherokee. I know you said you don't like domestics, but you're being irrational and the new JGC has been winning tons of accolades from the press. Go and give one a try at least. I'm with you on the other domestic BOF vehicles though - the Escalade, Navigator, and their Ford/Chevy equivilants are all at this point quite old and lacking in technology and features, and the interiors are nothing to write home about. I really wouldn't bother with any of the Toyota SUVs on the used market. Here's the thing - they are very reliable, but in the US, Land Rover has been outselling them by a huge margin, because the equivilant land Rover (LR4/Discovery vs GX, Range Rover VS LX) is usually quite a bit cheaper with far more features - e.g. the Rovers have independent rear suspension vs live axles on the Toyota, the LR4 has standard height adjustable air suspension which IIRC the GX does not have. The problem with Toyota is that those trucks are made in Japan, and the Japanese currency has appreciated massively in the last couple of years while the British Pound has massively depreciated. Jaguar/Land Rover can simply afford to sell much better equipped vehicles for lower prices than the Japanese can while still reaping massive profits. Given the rather considerable price difference between say, a LR3/4 vs a GX which by my rough estimate looks like $6k-$10k for a 2008 model, I would probably still take my chances with the Land Rover even knowing that it will have more reliability issues. Even if you do end up spending the difference in price fixing it, and remember that even for the worst marques, it's still a minority of vehicles that end up having very serious issues, you're still getting a far more capable and luxurious vehicle, much better looking too. TL;DR Buy a Land Rover.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 23, 2012 16:19
|
|
|
Nocheez posted:Almost all Toyotas have non-interference motors. Hondas are the opposite. Almost all Toyotas from 15 years ago like yours have non-interference motors. In practice pretty much any motor with variable valve timing is going to be an interference motor and today that's basically all of them.
|
|
#
¿
May 5, 2012 04:05
|
|
|
pants on head posted:
Aveo: Cheap. no real consistent problems but poor build quality throughout, poor crash test ratings. Yaris: OK but probably will be expensive. Mediocre crash test ratings. Focus: The generation from around 2008 to 2011 was decently reliable and cheap, albeit really ugly and only got mediocre fuel economy. It was also only available as a sedan. The generation from before that was available as a hatch, but they are old cars at this point and were never great on reliability. Depending on price a very late model, from around 06-07 might be all right since they've mostly worked out the bugs by then but it's still an old car with old car crash test ratings. There is a new generation now but you probably won't find one for $10k and the reliability is unknown, especially since the versions with the automatic transmission (the "Dual clutch gearbox") are pretty new technology and have already had teething problems. Nissan Versa: Cheapest new car in America. Also the worst crash test ratings this side of a 1990s Ford Ranger, a deathtrap with a terrible interior. Pretty reliable though. Suzuki SX4: No one loving owns one so no one knows anything about it, the reliability on the various surveys are all pretty bad, plus there just aren't many dealerships around to work on them. Mazda2: This car is brand new, can you really get them for $10k? Here's my advice in general: "B segment" cars like the Yaris or Fiesta are never really very good deals because being small doesn't really net you any advantage unless you lived in a European style city with very limited parking. The fuel economy isn't really much better than cars a size bigger, they will have much less equipment and options and often poorer crash test ratings because the carmakers don't make much money from them, and comparatively few people in America actually buy them new so there aren't that many of them on the used market. Better to look at C segment cars like the Chevy Cruze or D segment cars like the Malibu. That being said, I think the ideal car for you is a Kia Soul. - It's a hatchback. - It came out in 2009 as a 2010 model, just early enough that you can get one used for right around your price range, and most of the steep depreciation has already passed. - 2009 was around the time when Hyundai/Kia were starting to get really good with reliability and safety, it has quite decent crash test ratings. - They actually sold a whole bunch of them too so you can find one easily used. - Kias come with a 5 year, 60k mile warranty that is fully transferable, so a 20010 Kia will still have about 2 years of factory warranty coverage. The 10 year 100k mile power train warranty does not transfer but you can get it if you buy a Certified Pre-Owned(CPO) car from a Kia dealer. The only downsides I can see is that the automatic transmission is only a 4 speed which is pretty passe compared to the more expensive models and may not have quite as good fuel economy, you're better off if you can drive stick. Also it looks kind of dumb.
|
|
#
¿
May 19, 2012 03:34
|
|
|
If a Toyota Prius can carry the number of children and instruments you need then it's hard to think of anything better. It legitimately gets the best mileage of any commonly available car in the US and is otherwise a great car with all kinds of neat doodads like the solar panel on the roof that keeps the AC going on sunny days when the car is parked, even radar cruise control on 2010+ models. If you want something a little bigger there is the Ford Escape/Mercury Mariner/Mazda Tribute Hybrid triplets. Yes they are "SUVs" but I wouldn't get too hung up on the nomenclature - people who buy these things use the for the same purpose that you do, it's just that more people feel better about themselves by calling it an SUV than the other way around so that's what carmakers call them. The hybrids are all FWD, you can't take them off road or anything, so who cares.
|
|
#
¿
May 22, 2012 04:19
|
|
|
Mazda3 had a 4 speed auto up to the last reboot, and 25mpg combined is terrible for a C segment car. Actually none of them come close. If fuel economy was the priority I would not consider any of those cars over a Prius.
|
|
#
¿
May 22, 2012 06:32
|
|
|
http://www.cars.com/for-sale/search...ORM&enableSeo=1 Base model Prius MSRP started at around $20k new in 2008. You'll spend a bit more than a regular economy car but a 3 or 4 year old one is perfectly doable for $16k. Automatic AC standard.
|
|
#
¿
May 22, 2012 07:06
|
|
|
Eggplant Wizard posted:What's all this B segment C segment D segment business? You all keep using those words but they mean nothing to me. Perhaps you could explain them and I could throw it up in the OP or something. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vehicle_size_class#Europe It's...not very rigorous.
|
|
#
¿
May 22, 2012 14:24
|
|
|
LorneReams posted:My wife wants a new forester, but I was thinking she's just married to the Subaru name brand. I was wondering what is comparable in the market space to test before she makes a decision. There is a Hyundai and a Nissan that looks comparable, but I have no experience with anything like this. Any ideas/suggestions? I really want her to try other types instead of just relying on brand loyalty. Here's a comprehensive comparison. The one notable omission they didn't test was the VW Tiguan. http://www.cars.com/go/crp/buyingGuides/Story.jsp?section=SUV&story=29familyOverview&subject=stories&year=New The results are fairly uncontroversial compared to most other reviews. The Chevy Equinox is the pick of the litter at this point. Last time I checked GM was running the Equinox plant at full capacity and still struggling to meet demand. As for the Forester, we had one of the last gens before we replaced it with a Dodge Journey. They are all AWD, so if you don't need AWD you have no choice, the 4 speed automatic models are "on-demand" or "part time" AWD, which helps fuel economy to be somewhat equal to the 5 speed manual model, which has an extra gear ratio but is a "full time" AWD. I'm putting quotes around those terms because car makers use the terms to mean whatever they like and there is no industry wide standard. Basically the 'part time" ones have a clutch that engages the rear wheels when slip is detected electronically, and most of the time the rear wheels are free wheeling, while "full time" means there is an actual differential delivering power to all 4 wheels all the time. Anyway the big problem with the Forester is that is still uses an ancient 4 speed automatic transmission that gives it relatively poor fuel economy compared to other cars that mostly have 6 speeds. The manual is also only a 5 speed, plus the "full time" AWD reduces fuel economy to the same level as the 4 speed auto. Subarus are known for being very safe in a crash, due to judicious use of high strength boron steel in the car bodies. The current model is an IIHS "top pick". However the other marques have not stayed complacent in this respect, the Equinox is also a "top pick" and scores very well in the 2011 revised NHTSA crash tests too (the Subaru has not yet been tested by the NHTSA for 2011), same goes for the Dodge Journey and Hyundai/Kia models. The one glaring problem I've seen with the current generation Subarus is that their paint seems to be extremely thin and it's apparently common to see 1 or 2 year old Subaru with huge swathes of rust and bubbling paint on the body, I've seen this on cars in Alberta where they don't put salt on the roads. IIRC you are in Ontario, so it would be much worse. It's a common issue and you can do a search to read up on it. Other than that, the car is average or mediocre in most other respects. If you are going to look at the Forester I would urge you to also consider the Subaru Outback as well. It is prices similar (a little higher maybe) to the Forester with the same engine, but because it's based on the platform of the larger Legacy, it has more room, a longer wheelbase and is all around a better car. The Outback is about 20cm longer than the Forester and similar in other exterior dimensionsr. The Legacy/Outback is lower in height (but ground clearance is the same) and has a longer wheelbase and wider track, all of which make for better driving dynamics. The base model Outback also uses a CVT transmission which delivers significantly better fuel economy than the outdated 4 speed auto in the Forester despite being a heavier vehicle. Here are the current NHTSA crash test results for both: Legacy: Front Driver: 4/5 Front Passenger: 4/5 Driver side: 5/5 Rear passenger side: 4/5 Rollover: 4/5 For the Forester: Front Driver: 4/5 Front Passenger: 5/5 Driver side: 4/5 Rear passenger side: 2/5 Rollover: 4/5 We could really see no reason to pick the Forester over the Outback. Throatwarbler fucked around with this message at 23:45 on May 22, 2012 |
|
#
¿
May 22, 2012 23:42
|
|
|
Here is something for the first post. Crash safety is something that people in AI often overlook but the average car buyer should consider. Cars today are much safer than they were, say, 10 years ago and are getting safer with every generation. In addition to protecting you in a crash, how well a car holds up in a crash is a good indication of how well the car is built in general and the level of technology within the vehicle and the marque. The safest cars also tend to be the best cars in other respects as well. There are 2 major safety testing organizations in the US, IIHS and NHTSA. They test cars using slightly different testing and scoring methods that also change over time, so old test scores aren't really comparable to new ones. The NHTSA scores changed completely for cars past 2011, and the IIHS added a roof crush test somewhere around 2008 or so. Without going on more about it, the best source for information is informed for life. There are good explanations for how safety and testing works, and also a comprehensive ranking table that aggregates both the IIHS and NHTSA test scores for a car. They also do some funky math to come up with a combined score but you don't need to worry about that.
|
|
#
¿
May 23, 2012 00:04
|
|
|
LorneReams posted:Thanks for all this info, this is a big help. I'll check out the cars link...when she went to buy the Forester, I saw that the warrenty was only 36K compared to the 60K for the Hyundai, so I got her to old off until I looked into it. Also, the thing that sucks is she likes the size of the the Forester, and the Tucson is slightly small, but the Santa Fe is slightly too big 36k is pretty normal for a mass market brand, Hyundai/Kia and Mitsubishi are the exceptions to the rule and have much better warranties, however note that they are limited to the first owner, and if you sell the car the second owner doesn't get the big 10 year 100k powertrain warranty. quote:I look in the Chevy Equinox, but it seems to be more like the Outback, which she dosen't really like. I'm not sure if you are getting confused here. Both the Equinox(iirc) and the Outback are longer and larger than the Forester. Are you thinking maybe of the Outback Sport? That's a completely different car.
|
|
#
¿
May 23, 2012 00:10
|
|
|
LorneReams posted:I went looking at the outback and they were shorter and about the same length as the forester. They were right next to each other at the dealership. I have also done this and I'm afraid you are mistaken. http://www.subaru.com/vehicles/outback/static/compare.html Height 65.8" length: 188.2", wheelbase 107.9". http://www.subaru.com/vehicles/forester/static/compare.html Height 65.9" length: 179.5", wheelbase 103". The Equinox is 187" long. You must be confusing the Legacy Outback with the Outback Sport, the Outback Sport is indeed a smaller car than the Forester. In fact it looks like for 2012 they've removed the outback name and are just calling to the Impreza Sport, to avoid this sort of confusion. EDIT: Here's a thing. http://www.tricitysubaru.com/forester-vs--outback-side-by-side.htm Throatwarbler fucked around with this message at 03:05 on May 23, 2012 |
|
#
¿
May 23, 2012 02:57
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 24, 2024 08:52 |
|
|
nm posted:
Are you saying this because you know someone who is selling one? Or just that the book value is around $10,000? Because I don't think they sold more than a few thousand of them in total. A search on cars.com turns up 22 in the entire country, none are in Texas and half of them seem to be wrecks being parted out. I've never seen on in real life. You might as well be talking about W8 Passats. Try a 2003-4 Acura RL. 04 was the last model year before they switched body styles, of the most expensive car Honda sold. It was the last car to use the old longitudinal 90* iron block "C" engine, SOHC, no VTEC, should last forever as long as the timing belt is fresh. They are well equipped as standard from the factory with pretty nice interiors. "Roomy, but not a land yacht" and much more reliable than a loving BMW. I never recommend anyone buy a Honda/Acura because they typically have high resale values, but the RL was always sort of an orphan model with relatively low resale values compared to their MSRP new.
|
|
#
¿
May 27, 2012 12:12
|
|