Edmunds dealer partner, Bayway Leasing, is now offering transparent lease deals via these forums. Click here to see the latest vehicles!
Options
Popular New Cars
Popular Used Sedans
Popular Used SUVs
Popular Used Pickup Trucks
Popular Used Hatchbacks
Popular Used Minivans
Popular Used Coupes
Popular Used Wagons
Comments
and yes if your car has little to no options on it the resale is gonna suck no matter what the maker is on the most part .
dude sometimes it is best to drop things because all your doing is showing how narrowminded you are on the subject . get off it already
If you check out Edmunds.com's TCOs, you'll see the biggest differences in depreciation in the first year. Owners of Korean cars and some others get killed in the first year, then after that the differences aren't as big, such that the five-year TCOs are pretty close to cars with higher resale values. So Korean cars are not a good value if you intend to keep one for only a year or two or three.
I think it would be pretty easy to swap one gear shift knob with another, but how easy would it be to swap the rubber boot surrounding the gear shift lever for a leather one?
I dislike the orange over red tail light covers. How hard would it be to buy after market light covers that are red over orange and change the wiring so that the appropriate portion of the tail light comes on at the appropriate time?
Anyway, back to the Aerio's driving position. The Aerio is the opposite of the Matrix. The steering column is long, the shifter is properly placed, the A pillars are out of the way, the dash design is slim and non-confining, and the windshield is large. I find the Aerio's driving position to be great! The steering wheel does appear to be out of place, with how it protrudes so far from such a small instrument pod, but in actuality, it seems high enough to me in relation to the seat and we are the same size (I'm 5'6", 120#). I think I have my car search narrowed down to the Protege5, Aerio SX, Tiburon, and Lancer OZ. Decisions, decisions....
I know personally of the vehicles that you listed I would choose the P5...of course I already did. I know that if I can find a comfortable seating postion in that car anyone can. I have a long back, short legs and I'm not particularly svelt.
I agree with you on the Matrix seating position. Considering it's a taller car they shouldn't have had the dash so close to the driver. It feels really confining. I've sat in all the other cars i just havn't driven them. The Aerio I was not too impressed with of course I don't like digital dashes much but that's my opinion. The Tiburon isn't my style. The Lancer I know nothing about except for specifications. IMHO I think the P5 is the prettiest in a boy-racer kind of way.
The June Car & Driver has a good comparo with the Matrix XRS, Vibe (not GT), Aerio SX, Protege5 and the Focus ZX5. ( I think I got them all) It's got good statistical information on them all.
Regarding the C&D comparo, the Aerio SX came in last while the Protege5 came in first. There was a sixth participant and it was the PT Cruiser.
Can't wait to see it!
2021 Kia Soul LX 6-speed stick
FWIW, the article title is misleading as a couple of the cars run for more than $15k.
Chrysler PT Cruiser
Ford Focus ZX5
Pontiac Vibe
Mazda Protegé5
Suzuki Aerio SX
Toyota Matrix XRS
http://www.caranddriver.com/xp/Caranddriver/comparisontests/2002/june/200206_comparo_boxes.xml?&page=1
OK, they are not sedans, nonetheless very interesting where they rated the Vibe/Matrix?
-Larry
How's that for a start?
$12,000-$14,000:
1. Accent GL
2. ECHO
3. Rio
Around $15,000:
1. Corolla CE
2. Civic LX
3 (tie). Focus SE
3 (tie). Lancer ES
Also, on my earlier post (which I typed too quickly), I meant to say that MT should have used the Corolla LE 5-speed instead of the CE, based on their original criteria. If they had used automatics for these cars, the LE would have been far above the $15,000 limit.
So I've found myself seriously considering a Hyundai Accent, and when it's paid off in 3 or 5 years, seeing what else is out there. And the more I've read about it, the more appealing it sounds, and the more I'm looking forward to the test drive.
Backy, thanks for posting the results. Did they say how all the cars would have finished if they had been one big group?
Just a thought.
Before you spring for an Accent, you might want to look at the Elantra. In my town it goes for only about $500 more than the Accent after discounts and rebate, and that's with more features on the Elantra. The Elantra is much more car for the money.
An example of the first part is that at one point they stated the fit and finish of the Accent and the Echo were equal. Another later sentence seemed to reaffirm that to a certain extent. However, when it came time to give a grade for fit and finish, the Accent got a much higher grade than the Echo. If the fit and finish were equal, how is it that the grades were unequal?
An example of the second is that the editors seemed to give the Corolla [and Civic] points in the category of value because they would cost less to own particularly compared to Korean models [even though no Korean cars were in that part of the comparo]. Strange that the Echo does not seem to get any points for having a lower cost of ownership and it was being compared against two Korean cars. And Motor Trend says that the ultimate reason the Echo did not win was value.
And check out the What's Hot, What's Not section of the comparo. Two of the three strikes against the Accent were "performance" related while only one of the strikes against the Echo [and the Rio] was/were "performance" related.
Also, the Echo produced the best slalom numbers, but Motor Trend downplayed that. They complained that the Echo was unentertaining to drive fast.
Finally, the Rio stopped in the shortest distance the first time, but then they had trouble with the brakes locking up [and these were ABS]. Yet, the Rio got the best score in the brake category.
I could go on [and I will later], but I need to get ready for work.
I read as many comparo's that I can. I take whatever info I get with a grain of salt, drive the cars and THEN make up my mind. Personally I like taking the "cons" that the mags come up with and comparing them to what I think when I drive the car. Sometimes they have a point and sometimes they are dead wrong. But then again that's my opinion
Chow(der)
P.S. Majorthom, why are you complaining about how MT rated the Rio's brakes? We all know that one good stop is all we need from a car in its lifetime. ;-)
First, let's discuss the fit and finish ratings. I think it has more to do with perceptions of Toyota and Hyundai quality then anything else. Toyota is always expected to be tops in fit and finish, but apparently, the Echo didn't live up to these expectations and was a dissapointment, thus the lower rating (might also have to do with the funky styling which they didn't like). Hyundai, on the other hand, is seen by most people as being junk, so the high levels of quality they encountered shocked them and made a big impression, thus the higher rating. They also stated in the verdict that the Accent matched the Echo in materials and assembly and in some cases beat the Echo. Those certain cases must have also raised its rating.
As for the Civic and Corolla value rating, what M/T was trying to say was that the greater expense for these larger compact cars might be worth it over the cheaper SUBCOMPACT Korean cars (like the Accent and Rio) due to their lower cost of ownership. Their actual ratings were based on how they compared to the other compact cars in the test. The Echo didn't enjoy the same plus because its $2k higher price didn't even include pw, pl, and pm like the Accent. This hurt its value rating a lot and couldn't offset its possible lower ownership costs.
As for the complaints regarding the Echo's suspension, it was panned not only for the fact it was unexciting to drive. It was said to have an unsettled front suspension that bounced and juddered over uneven pavement and freeway expansion strips. It's tires were also said to give up grip too quickly. They downplayed the higher slalom number because an unsettled suspension doesn't instill confidence and can scare less capable drivers. They mark down a car heavily for this feeling. It may have gotten higher numbers with a professional driver, but its unsettled nature can have the opposite effect with a non-professional driver.
Lastly, I think M/T made a mistake about mentioning ABS on the Rio. It wasn't mentioned as an option at the beginning and is not mentioned in the stats, therefore I don't think it had it. A car's brakes should never lock if it has ABS. If it did have ABS and the brakes were locking, they would have made a big deal out of the malfunction. They most likely rated the brakes higher because of the significantly shorter distance at the first stop. 24 feet is nothing to sneeze at and is a big difference. The fact that the brakes faded and locked up easier after repeated hard stops hurt it, but the brakes still performed better initially then the Accent and Echo and that counts. Honestly, how many times do you slam on your brakes for all their worth 5 times in a row? That first initial emergency braking situation is what matters and in the Rio you will stop a lot faster then in the other two. Thus its higher rating in the brake department.
Now, that is funny! LOL!! :-)))
-larry
Also, the Echo comes with height adjustable rear seat headrests. The others are fixed height headrests.
I tried to put together an Echo equipped the way the Motor Trend car was for the same price and I failed. I selected just the options [their car seemed to have] ala carte and I came up with an MSRP that was less. I selected the options as part of packages [getting more options in the process] and I came out with a car that was more than what they showed.
Would the fact they are in California and I am in the midwest have something to do with the difference in price?
By the way, are you including destination charges in your MSRP figures? M/T does that. That might account for the difference.
And how do you know the part about the ABS was a misprint? ABS is an option on the Rio, after all. Did you write the editors of Motor Trend? Did they publish a correction on their website?
Another thing I did not understand is how the automatic equipped Echo took so much longer to stop than the manual equipped Echo that Motor Trend tested a couple of years ago. Was the difference in weight that great?
Carsdirect.com includes the destination charges in the figures it provides so that does not explain the differences in figures.
After all, surveys from actual owners lead Consumer Reports to predict that the Toyota Echo is the most reliable, new car for 2002.
And it holds that distinction by a wide margin over the second place car.
The Hyundai Elantra was kept out of the basement only due to the presence of the Ford Focus.
Another thing I find curious. They note that "the Civic LX scored a near-miss on first place." When I tally their scores, I count six top scores and three ties for the top score for the Corolla, and two top scores plus two ties for top score for the Civic. That's a "near-miss"? In contrast, the third-place Focus has two top scores and one tie for top score. I guess they didn't consider that a "near-miss" for second place.
Majorthom, I am surprised you haven't mentioned yet that they complained about the ECHO's center-mounted speedometer, yet in the same magazine they reviewed the Mini Cooper S and somehow had no problem seeing its center-mounted speedometer (although they did gripe about all the information that is crammed into one place). But at least the Mini Cooper has a tach in front of the driver.
Maybe we should not be so harsh to MT's editors on their proofreading after all, as we can all make mistakes once in awhile.
Backy is also correct about J.D.Powers. Personally, I take with a grain of salt the awards for "Most Appealing Blue Mid-Premium Near-Luxury Car with Cupholders Built on a Tuesday in Poughkeepsie" and the like.