Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!





Outlander vs CX-7 vs Tribeca

1789101113»

Comments

  • ateixeiraateixeira Posts: 72,587
    Not really, ALG updates that list regularly. Those ratings are for current models.

    Lease companies actually use ALG ratings to come up with actual residual values.

    The reason this is important is that when those leases are up, these off-lease vehicles hit the used car market. If you sell yours, you will be competing with those same off-lease used vehicles. The Outlander will be priced lower.

    The numbers are very real-world applicable for this exact reason.

    Edmunds' TCO is also for the new models, not the old ones.

    Plus, the Outlander and RAV4 have been out for a while now, they're not exactly brand new.
  • ateixeiraateixeira Posts: 72,587
    Look again, the Saturn Outlook is already on there, and that's newer than the RAV4 or the Outlander.

    The list is current. The new Outlander is rated at just 2 stars. Off-lease vehicles will be cheap used, a bargain IMO as I stated earlier.
  • There is not much resale going on for the new Outlander, all the cars out there are less then one year old, so there is no reliable resale data.

    The ALG web site specifically says that the ratings "based on 2006 model year vehicles".
  • rcpaxrcpax Posts: 581
    If they turn out cheaper as used, then the next buyer really wins. This vehicle is a champ, very good package overall. Perhaps then people will buy good value used Outlanders in greater numbers. It's already the best value when sold new, how much more when slightly used off-lease. I still have to see some figures though on owners who decide to buy it after lease. I bought mine for keeps so resale value don't bother me a bit.
  • ateixeiraateixeira Posts: 72,587
    Right, but lease companies are using these same numbers to calculate residuals on 2007 and pretty soon 2008 models.

    It's a bit optimistic to assume those will change dramatically, especially when the off-lease Outlanders hitting the used car market will be priced based on those residuals.

    Oddly enough, there was no 2006 Saturn Outlook. :D
  • >> Oddly enough, there was no 2006 Saturn Outlook.

    Right, there was no 2006 Saturn Outlook, which makes these ratings "odd", as you say yoursef, :-)
    .

    >> It's a bit optimistic to assume those will change dramatically, especially when the off-lease Outlanders hitting the used car market will be priced based on those residuals.

    Market demand in 2008-2012 for a particular car will define used car pricing, not some "odd" 2006 ratings.
  • ateixeiraateixeira Posts: 72,587
    You must be a gambling man. ;)

    If your Outlander is totalled tomorrow, the insurance payout will be much smaller than it would be for a similarly priced (when new) RAV4.

    It's true right now. We don't have to wait until 2012.

    That may change if most Outlander owners are as happy as you seem to be.
  • dodo2dodo2 Posts: 496
    I know this discussion is in the wrong spot. There is another separate thread regarding this comparison, but wired enough, not too many RAV4 or CRV owners there either.

    I would not argue the resale value argument, which obviously is favorable to the RAV4 (in absolute value), but again, it shouldn't be a factor in the car magazines comparisons. The magazines should compare the actual cars, based on the “on-hand” data not market speculations, personal preference or other subjective factors. These types of assessments belong to the buyer.

    When I was shopping, I looked at the resale value projections and the purchase price on the Canadian market for the CRV, RAV4 and Outlander. I have to mention that the Canadian market is significantly different from the US market.
    The conclusion was that I would have had to pay in excess of $5,000 more for a RAV4 or a CRV to get the features I wanted in my car (some still not available at this price difference). I did not’t think that in 5+ years the higher resale value of the RAV4 or CRV would cover the initial purchase price difference.

    The truth is that the CRV wasn't really a contender due to the lack of a V6 option (aside from its ugly exterior and minivan dashboard - this is a personal opinion), but I still had it in my comparison, just to give me a full perspective. FYI: My evaluation also included the SantaFe and the CX7. I love the CX-7 (I have one in my diecast models collection :) ), but the engine was the major deal breaker for the type of vehicle I was looking for.
  • dodo2dodo2 Posts: 496
    That may change if most Outlander owners are as happy as you seem to be.

    If you judge by the owners’ posts on various Outlander forums, I think it's safe to say that over 90% of the Outlander owners are indeed happy with their cars so far.
    There were very few minor problems with the car for its first year in North America and Mitsubishi was very quick in addressing them. What's not to be happy about?
    Of course, it's still too early to rate its long-term reliability, but so far so good. Fingers crossed.
  • >> You must be a gambling man. If your Outlander is totalled tomorrow, the insurance payout will be much smaller than it would be for a similarly priced (when new) RAV4.

    I would consider an event as gambling, when I have one chance for unfortunate event out of two, or in some cases out of 100 or so. The possibility of my car being totaled is based on very large assumption of yours and would not qualify as gambling. I mean do you consider driving as gambling? If your car would be totaled, quite likely you would not even know about it, or at least your would not care about a difference in your car "insurance payout". Fight for you life will be the only a fixation on your mind :-)
  • ateixeiraateixeira Posts: 72,587
    The gambling reference was in response to the idea that the expectation was that resale would improve significantly.

    Any how, I agree that a purchase choice should be made primarily on the merits of a test drive, and a personal evaluation. Never mind what the reviews say.

    After all, do you recall Time magazine's review of Titanic?

    They called it "Dead in the Water". :D
  • aviboy97aviboy97 Posts: 3,159
    That's the clincher for a lot of folks, the 2GR engine is both powerful AND efficient.

    Transmission gearing also has a say in how many MPG's you get. Toyota has figured out a happy median between performance and just cruising. Most Toyota drivers do not drive as aggressive as say a Mazda buyer, so, Toyota can focus more on economy, rather then performance their main priority. Mazda is notorious for having higher gearing at higher speed which effects it's highway MPG's. The benefit is your engine is ready to push, which fits the "zoom-zoom" way of building a car.

    My Mazda6 2.3L is turning almost 3,500 rpm's at 70 mph and I get 30mpg's. If the engine was turning 3,000 rpm's at that speed, I bet you I would get 32-34 mpg's.
  • Yeap, and I also remember:

    "I think there is a world market for about 5 computers" - Thomas Watson (Chairman of IBM), 1943

    640k ought to be enough for everyone" - Bill Gates on computer memory, 1981

    ...and finally about cars:

    "With over 50 foreign cars already on sale here, the Japanese auto industry isn't like to carve out a big slice of the US market" - Business Week, 1968
  • ateixeiraateixeira Posts: 72,587
    The 640k comment is the one that really cracks me up!

    Critics will be critics. Often I feel they want to be seen as fiercely independent so they'll be overly critical of a car.

    A good example is Jeremy Clarkson, he's hyper-critical in an attempt to be funny, but some times it just comes off as mean.
1789101113»
This discussion has been closed.