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
There was incredible interest in the spy photos for the '07 Elantra. Maybe because Hyundai did such a good job of shielding the car from the public eye, and decent spy photos emerged only shortly before the car's formal introduction. Honda is perhaps best at hiding cars until they are introduced. They kept the North American Fit watchers guessing for a long time, even though the car has been around awhile elsewhere. The Rabbit's looks were no mystery, since the design has been available in Europe for a long time.
Ok, let's not talk about the Rabbit then. How about that new-for-'07 Aveo sedan? Talk about generating a lot of interest. Not.
Seriously though, magazines do early reviews on just about every new model, or what can be fitted into their time schedule, and what's available for them. Poor perception/bias on your part because Hyundai's new lineup has generated a lot of interests and buzz.
Oh by the way, Golf doesn't come in the form of a sedan so in essence it doesn't exactly fall into this discussion called "Low End Sedans"
Bad stereotyping. You are assuming people who like Hyundai like Daewoo and are all Koreans. And, let's move away from the igorance.
Let's have this on record, I am not Korean With that said, I like small cars like the Aveo; one thing I am afraid with the upcoming 07 Chevy/Daewoo Aveo is its safety results. 1 1/2 star in the Euro NACP, I just hope it'd better when tests are performed here.
As for the warranty item you brought up, warranty costs for Hyundai are way down, contributed mainly by the fact cars built out of the factory floor are better, in every shape or form, including quality and reliablity. Unforuantely, Daewoos are still not up to par with Hyundai, but they have gotten a lot better.
So your logic being Backy and others would be interested in the new Aveo [because] "it is a cheap Korean made car with a hisotry of poor quality". Correct me if I am mistaken by your logic.
What do I mean by Hyundai cars from the factory floor are build better? Well, in terms of lower warranty costs, a direct correlation can be drawn for better build qualities and fewer reliability problems [than in the past]. This is supported by the vast improvement Hyundai has achieved, espeically in the areas of quality and reliability.
And lastly, I typed too fast - forgive me for not doing a spell check
Every generation of Accent has improved vastly, as far as I can recall. The 06/7 MY is no exception - on par/better vs. its competitors. The hatchback version, especially the SE trim, has generated a lot of interests.
Corolla and Civic doesn't compete with Accent; Echo has been discontiuned.
Personally, I view anything with a lifgate as a hatchback, whether being two-door, or four-door.
Why do you refer to me as a "spokesperson"? A spokesperson of what? Does the fact that I have owned Hyundais and have said some positive things about them (also many negative things) make me a spokesperson for them? If so, then I guess I am a spokesperson for Hyundai. Also for Mazda, Honda, Toyota, Ford/Mercury, Dodge, Chevy, Mitsubishi, and Nissan.
A cursory search of every post you have made dating back to October 2005 yields not a single "negative" post.
This question should actually be directed to inharmsway since he is the one looking for a base Yaris sedan with a manual transmission, not me.
In fact I am not even considering the Yaris or the Fit for one very important reason (to me, at least): a power sunroof is not available in either car.
Anyway, since this is a car discussion and not a court of law where I am on trial, I don't really see the point of taking your time and my time with all this foolishness, do you? Maybe to save everyone's time, some people who have been following the Hyundai-related discussions for the past few years can vouch for my claim that I have made negative statements about Hyundais (e.g. my tirades about the IIHS frontal crash test result on the '01 Elantra and how Hyundai responded to it).
And then we can get back to talking about cars, instead of individuals. It does amaze me though why you have such interest in what I say and why. Wouldn't you rather talk about cars?
Incorrect.
You relied on incorrect information.
Now you know.
These cars aren't as bad a deal as you might think. Many of them are very inexpensive to begin with. Furthermore, cars with low residual values can be bargains when purchased used, since you'll likely be able to purchase a car on this list for far less than you'd pay for a competing vehicle more adept at holding its value.
1 2006 Ford Focus — 14.4%2 2006 Dodge Stratus — 14.7%
3 2006 Kia Optima — 16.2%
4 2006 Nissan Sentra — 17.8%5 2006 Suzuki Reno — 18.2%
6 2006 Kia Rio — 20.2% 7 2006 Chrysler Sebring — 20.3%
8 2006 Hyundai Elantra — 20.4% 9 2006 Kia Spectra — 21.9%
10 2006 Mercury Grand Marquis — 22.6%
2006 Mini Cooper — 54 percent 2006 Dodge Viper — 52.5 percent
2006 Toyota Camry Solara — 52 percent
2006 Honda S2000 — 51.4 percent
2006 Porsche 911 — 50 percent
2006 BMW M3 — 48.7 percent
2006 Volkswagen New Beetle — 48.6 percent
2006 Toyota Matrix — 48.3 percent
2006 Acura RSX — 48.3 percent
2006 BMW 3 Series — 48.2 percent
Of course these aren't really the cars we are looking at. Wonder how the Fit and Yaris will figure.
In the last 15 years, I've owned 2 cars. If you plan on keeping your car a long time, the residual just isn't that important. A small added bonus, but not much of a concern.
In the last 15 years, I've owned 2 cars. If you plan on keeping your car a long time, the residual just isn't that important. A small added bonus, but not much of a concern.
I'd tend to disagree... the difference between a car that holds its value and one that depreciates quickly can cost you thousands, even after holding on to a vehicle for 5-10 years.
Somewhere else its posted that the Ford Focus only fetches 14% of its initial price after 5 years. In the list above, some cars fetch more than 50% of their initial price... a 36% of sticker difference, aka several thousand dollars.
That's huge, frankly. :surprise:
And even if you were to hold onto a car a few years past that and the differences were halved, it'd still be huge. Maybe if I ever make it big in the stock market, I'd feel differently.
With Honda and Toyota, you tend to get more. I know this from experience.
With the Focus getting disastrous resale, I can only assume that's from its early history of mechanical problems, which I think have been at least partly addressed by Ford by now. Perhaps resale here is acting as a 'lagging indicator'.
Ditto for all the Kias on the poor resale value list (three)... I'm assuming that they're getting the short end of the stick due to past reliability problems, and the product has improved a bit recently.
To make the engine smaller and lighter, Toyota used a modular front section of the engine, which incorporates the water pump and chain cover.
Toyota also used smaller-diameter spark plugs to reduce engine size."
----------excerpts from Autoweek
~alpha
This must meant manufacturer's who make 5 speeds are assuming we haven't forgotten to downshift to 4th or even 3rd as needed for full passing power.
I did get lazy with my Golfs. They turned over a 4,000 rpm at 80, which meant once you were on the freeway you hardly ever had to shift (once you quit checking to see if it was already in 5th).
The results:
Frontal Driver: 4 stars
Frontal Passenger: 4 stars
Front seat Side impact: 5 stars
Rear Seat Side Impact: 5 stars
These are the EXACT same scores the BMW 3-series, Volvo S60 MB C-class, received in the SAME weight class.
This currently places the Rabbit as the least expensive car in the 2007 MEDIUM class with these scores!
Saying the Rabbit is currently the least expensive car in the 2007 MEDIUM class with these scores is faint praise--and also misleading. First, there's currently only one car in that group, the Caliber, that is lower priced than the Rabbit. There are several more expensive cars in that group that have equal or better scores than the Rabbit, including some priced not much above the Rabbit such as the Accord DX. Second, the Caliber scored dual five stars for frontal impact, and hasn't been rated yet for side impact. So to imply the Rabbit is better is premature.
Scoring 4 stars in frontal tests in the MEDIUM class with cars that are significantly larger is mass is a stunning acomplishment. Take the Rabbit and place it in the "light" class (2 classes BELOW MEDIUM) with many of its competitors and it would most likely score 5 stars. I would only imagine how poorly the Accent, Fit, or Yaris would do if tested in the MEDIUM class.
I imagine the Rabbit will score a Silver award (like the Jetta and Passat), or even a Gold in the IIHS tests.
ALso, given that "In new cars from model years later than 2000, 51 percent of driver deaths occur in cars struck from the side compared to 44 percent in cars struck from the front," side impact results are far more important. http://www.cnn.com/2006/AUTOS/06/16/iihs_side_impact_sedans/
Which car would you rather put your kids in the rear seat, the Accent which scored 3 stars or the Rabbit which scored 5 stars? That's a potentially life or death difference.
"saying the Rabbit is currently the least expensive car in the 2007 MEDIUM class with these scores is faint praise--and also misleading."
How is this misleading? The fact remains that for under $16K MSRP, the Rabbit is most likely the safest SMALL (in dimensions, not weight) car available.
"There are several more expensive cars in that group that have equal or better scores than the Rabbit, including some priced not much above the Rabbit such as the Accord DX."
The Accord DX isn't even sold anyone (didn't even have A/C so not really comparable). The VP replaced it which starts at $18,775. But more importantly as you've said countless times before, a small hatchback is NOT going to compete with a mid-sized sedan, right?
I test drove a Rabbit 2-door yesterday. Without getting into the details of how it drove (simply amazing for $15,600 the dealer wanted for it), there would be no decision over what I "felt" was safer. There is a sense of solidity with the Rabbit that just isn't felt with the Fit, Yaris, etc. The doors felt heavy and solid, unlike the cheap, thin, and light doors of the Accent.
Your logic escapes me. The "class" of a car for NHTSA frontal impact testing has to do with the weight of the car. The test itself is exactly the same no matter what the weight of the car is--the car is slammed into the same barrier, at the same speed. The scores don't depend on weight, other than you are not supposed to compare scores across weight classes.
Actually, I contend that it is a greater accomplishment for a car that is greater in mass than the Rabbit--which almost all the cars in the MEDIUM test class are--to get 4 stars in the frontal crash. Think about it. The front of the car has to absorb the effects of the extra weight decelerating instantly to 0 mph.
I think it's premature to anoint the Rabbit the "safest car under $18K MSRP" based only on NHTSA testing. For under $18K I could buy a car like a Civic, that has excellent NHTSA and IIHS crash test scores, or a Sonata that has 4x5 star NHTSA crash test scores, very good IIHS crash test scores, and standard stability control.
You are right, the Accord DX is defunct now. But I don't recall saying countless times that a small hatchback won't compete with a mid-sized sedan. It depends on what you are looking for. Some people look for the most car for their money, whether it's a hatchback or mid-sized sedan. If you don't believe that, take a look at the Fit vs. Accord discussion.
I look forward to driving the Rabbit myself as soon as I can do that, maybe this weekend.
"The weight risk factor for heavy vehicles has the effect of offsetting frontal impact risk, derived from crash test data alone. For example, an "average" (3,300 lb.) passenger car with "average" frontal crash test ratings (4-1/2 stars by NHTSA + "ACCEPTABLE" by IIHS) has the equivalent SCORE as a 2,500 lb. passenger car rated 5-stars by NHTSA + "GOOD" by IIHS. In effect the improved crash test ratings compensated for the lighter weight, and the driver fatality rate stayed the same. This is the reason both NHTSA and IIHS warn consumers to only compare frontal impact ratings between vehicles within +/- 200 lbs of each other."
http://www.informedforlife.org/viewartcl.php?index=6
So, while the Rabbit received "only" 4 stars in the Frontal crash, given its increased weight, it's risk assessment would be that of a 5-star rating in the "light" or "compact" weight class.
Either way, after reviewing reports that show that those involved in an accident in a car rated at only 3 stars side impact have FOUR TIMES the risk of serious injury compared with a car rated at 5-stars, I will not purchase any car that has a side impact rating lower than 5 stars. It's just not worth the risk. So, if someone values the safety of their occupants from side impacts (all too numerous where I live) and wants a SMALL car, they really are limited to the Rabbit and Civic.
Accordingly, when two vehicles have identical frontal crash ratings, the heavier vehicle generally is safer than the lighter one.
That is what the "equivalent score" discussion is about. It's not possible to consider the Rabbit for the lower weight class because it doesn't fit into that class, and if you removed enough weight from the car to fit into the class, who knows how the crash protection would be affected? Anyway, even if that were possible, the Rabbit didn't get 4-1/2 stars for its average frontal score (it was 4), so its "equivalent" score would not be 5.
By your logic, you would want to buy one of the other Medium-class cars that got at least 4 stars in the frontal crash test and which are heavier than the Rabbit, because they would be safer, right?
Since according to the Informedforlife site frontal collisions are responsible for many more fatalities than side collisions (43% vs 26%), and a difference of one star can double the risk of serious injury or death, I still would rather have five stars than four stars on the front. Five stars all around would be especially good. Also, I respect the IIHS tests more than the NHTSA tests because the IIHS frontal test is tougher (faster, and offset) and the side test considers head injuries in the rankings. Since the Jetta did well in the IIHS tests, the Rabbit should do well also. However, I recommend you wait for the IIHS tests because there have been some cars that received 5 stars on the NHTSA side impact tests and did not do well in the IIHS side impact tests (the side curtains on the Rabbit should mitigate that risk, however).
backy, "The Forums Test Drive Team" #182, 1 Jul 2006 2:12 pm
http://www.iihs.org/ratings/default.aspx