Edmunds dealer partner, Bayway Leasing, is now offering transparent lease deals via these forums. Click here to see the latest vehicles!
Please help me decide between...
This discussion has been closed.
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
I swear I am about to strangle my wife. We just spent four ours on Edmunds researching SUVs. She doesn’t want midsized ones because they are too big. Small ones don’t have enough leg room. CRV is great, but it won’t work because it is a 4cyl. RAV4 has 6cyl but the spare tire on the rear door is ugly. RAV4 without the rear tire has run flat tires, she doesn’t like that either. I should unleash her on some salesmen; I bet she would generate some stories from the sales frontiers.
I'm driving a 22 year old 4Runner for precisely that reason. It runs, it works, and it's paid for. If I had to make payments and have full coverage on a vehicle right now, it would cripple me. If the Honda is paid off, drive it and laugh at the people who are paying for new cars. That's exactly WHY you used to buy a Honda or Toyota, in fact - because you could drive it another decade once it was paid off and really come out ahead.
Why is that? My mechanic has been telling me for years that if I want uncomplicated long life, a Japanese four-cylinder is the way to go. The sixes aren't bad but are more complicated. I'd have loved a strong four (and manual transmission) in our Sienna, which of course wasn't available. So six new spark plugs are two-three hours of labor. Oh well.
Honda arguably builds the best four-cylinder engines in the world. They were years behind Toyota when they stuffed a six into the Accord, and C&D wrote about it, saying it was basically a waste of money, the four being so good and the car more balanced.
I subscribe to the theory that we drive much more powerful engines than we need because American drivers, especially women, are conditioned to never floor or flog an engine. IOW, the car needs to accelerate great with 1/2 throttle or less, and not sound like it's working hard.
The few times you really need close to 200 hp, just open up the CRV and it'll get the job done. Maybe you can get the missus to try it out on a test drive; just warm up the engine well beforehand. With your parameters, the CRV should be about perfect.
Good luck,
-Mathias
My top cars are Lexus IS250 (number 1 choice), BMW 328i and MB C300. I absolutely love the Lexus, but the APR on a purchase is about 7.7% (729 Auto Fico, but first-time buyer) and all that money is a total loss, and not worth it in my opinion. BMW and MB are higher priced, but both have potential APR of 0.9% (both say I would qualify but I don't know until I run credit.. I have already run at Lexus) for 60 and 66 months respectively. On the Lexus I'm interested in the premium and navi packages (POSSIBLY not navi, depending on the deal) with auto tranny, on the BMW just the premium package with auto tranny and on the MB just automatic tranny (possibly prem 1 package). What is the best car to hold value? Obviously the 3 series and C-class were both completely redone in in the past 2 years, Lexus had a last major redo in 2005 so it will likely have another one in the next 2 to 3 model years which concerns me on resale (no, I don't want to lease). BMW also pays first 2 months payments and has 4 year/50000 mile maintenance which is a plus, though Lexus already threw in 2 years maintenance and I'm sure MB would do the same.
On the CPO side there is '06 or '07 IS250 (though I much prefer the '08 and '09 because of the grey wood trim), the '06 325i (0.9% APR) and the C230 (unknown APR?).
I'm looking for opinions on whether the depreciation factor is high enough on the new models that I should look at going with the CPO instead or if a new vehicle is worth the extra ~$12K more. Also, is the CPO program on these vehicles any good (include maintenance, thorough inspection, etc?) because I've seen some posts that make me wary on other threads. Basically, I'm looking for your thoughts on NEW vs. USED (purchase) and then from there what vehicle out of the 3 as far as reliability, cost of ownership, etc. Thanks so much all! I've learned so much from you all already and am looking forward to your informative responses!
"The CR-V's Achilles' heel continues to be its four-cylinder engine, which simply can't compete with the V6s available in rival models. With a full load of passengers and cargo, highway merging can be harrowing, and the automatic transmission hunts more than Teddy Roosevelt on an African safari."
It is my fault, I introduced her to Edmunds. I usually shop for vehicles for her, give her two options and she picks one. However, I always get blamed for anything that goes wrong with her vehicle. This time she is doing her own research.
I think I will steer her toward the CR-V LX. My kids are going to get their licenses in two years. If she doesn't like the CR-V, she can give it to the kids.
Do you think CR-V is safe for teenager drivers? I know that SUV are not recommended for teenagers for the risk of roll over, but how likely is that?
Another question is AWD vs. FWD. We live in Northern VA and we don't really need AWD, however, I am worried about the resale value. In my area, for some dumb reason, majority of SUVs are sold as AWD, even sedans with that option are more popular. If I get the FWD, how bad do you think I will get hit at trade-in time?
Fortunately my wife has a much shorter "I hate that" list. I think it came from here dad being in car sales. She never got used to one car for any length of time.
Depends on how inclined your boys are to be idiots... I don't even know anyone who's rolled a car; it seems to be pretty avoidable for most sane people.
Disconnect the radio and make them keep their cell phones off, and you're 90% of the way there...
-Mathias
Your post if confusing. If you want to save money the cars you listed are not cheap. Buying new is also not cheap. It sounds like you brain is competing with your heart. Buy what you love and understand it will be expensive, or buy what is economical.
If you want the Lexus and are willing to drive it a long time then Lexi have good resale values and are very reliable. You're going to pay more for maintenance on the German cars, also read Edmund's recent experiences with the MB C series reliability. If you are only going to keep the car a few years and under 80k miles then all three are going to be very expensive because you will eat the depreciation and they are all expensive, even though they hold their values pretty well they start with a high price so the depreciation (in absolute terms) is a lot.
If you want a nicer car and want to save some money then buy a car that is a few years old and somebody else can eat that depreciation. CPO may buy some peace of mind but you will get a much better deal if you go private party. I'd personally buy a few year old car and have a trusted private mechanic look the car over. With the money you save you can pay for your own repairs or buy a maintenance contract.
The other option is to buy new but buy a cheaper car. Since it appears you like sportier small cars, look at fully loaded Honda Civic or Mazda 3, or Acura TSX or VW Jetta. But of course the Jetta has the high German repair costs and low reliability.
Best of luck and tell us how you do!
http://www.edmunds.com/ownership/safety/articles/121373/article.html
Rollovers are a common problem with teen drivers and account for about 25% of fatal accidents. Teens do this more than experienced drivers because they swerve to miss something, then oversteer and overcorrect. They also have the lowest rate of seatbelt use and thus are more likely to be ejected from the vehicle if they do roll it. For this reason the typical SUV is not as safe for a teen driver as it would be for more mature drivers.
I have had 3 kids through the teen years and from my experience with them and their friends, I say big, safe, and slow. Buick or Toyota Camry or something like that.
'17 Chevy Volt Premiere
Well, that issue has an easy engineering solution...
My point is that the fix to rollover issues is not a lower center of gravity but a higher level of responsibility.
There are a very few vehicles that are prone to rolling over, and they were duly noted by Consumer's Union. The Tracker/Samurai twins, a couple others... I forget, it's been a while. But any car-based SUV is going to be just fine.
My point of view is that of a bicycle commuter. I'm scared *of* them, not *for* them.
-Mathias
You can have rollover woes with cars, too, when they are badly engineered. VW Beetles were like that. Early Corvairs. The sad thing with the Corvairs is they were nice cars and once the problem was corrected they were as safe as most things on the road - but the damage had been done.
I subscribe to the theory that we drive much more powerful engines than we need because American drivers, especially women, are conditioned to never floor or flog an engine. IOW, the car needs to accelerate great with 1/2 throttle or less, and not sound like it's working hard.
Unfortunately, this leads to poor ring seating, carbon build-up, and other ills. Engines need to be regularly run at 2/3 - 3/4 of their maximum RPM to remain healthy. Every time I hear someone lugging a 4 cylinder engine I cringe. Americans need to un-learn these habits as they lead to premature wear, poor mileage, and buying a much more expensive vehicle than you need. A manual 4 cylinder Accord will go quicker in actual driving as the 6 with automatic just because of the driving style and one using the engine versus the other lugging it all the time.
*****
As for the poster who is looking for a small luxury sport sedan, I have a couple of recommendations, since my best friend recently was in the same scenario.
1: You want a car with RWD and proper handling. Front wheel drive is not any safer than RWD except in very tiny cars with poor weight distribution. Since a tiny Yaris, for instance, is about 60% front-heavy, it makes sense to make it FWD. But a sporty European type car with almost 50/50 weight distribution that weighs over 3000lbs is far better off as RWD. Case in point - my 2 ton SUV with RWD and rock-crawling tires is easier to steer than a rental FWD Cobalt I got recently.
2: You want a couple of year old certified car. Let the other person eat the initial tax and depreciation. You can, for instance, get a 4 year old C class for nearly 15K. That's a TAD better than a Corolla, in my book.
3:You want manual. Every car that's sold in Europe to people outside of maybe luxo-barges like the S-Class and taxis is manual. If you want a reliable car, therefore, manual is an absolute must. Mercedes, for instance, has terrible quality on its automatic transmissions because they're basically Chrysler units that they toss in for rental fleets in Europe(or technology borrowed from Chrysler) - and bring over pretty much as-is to the unwashed masses of yuppies in the U.S.(they really do look down on us when it comes to vehicles, and quite often, it's deserved)
The Lexus suffer from the miserable 5 and 6 speed automatics that are really expensive to fix and not very reliable as they are pretty new technology that Toyota is working the bugs out of. In Asia, the vast majority of vehicles are also sold with manuals, and a Japanese manual transmission is fantastic. Because it's what they sell at home. Again, they tend to toss any old automatic in it, call it a day, and ship it over to the U.S.
The best automatic transmissions, btw, are made by... GM. Because it's all GM does and has done for 95% of its fleet for nearly 40 years. GM also makes good manuals in their upper-end vehicles when you can find them.
The typical manual transmission repair is $600-$900. The typical automatic is now $4000. As a young driver, learning manual is not only a good skill to have, but it's the most frugal long-term option. Oh - and the cars have much higher resale value when you do decide to sell it in a few years.
My recommendations would be to look at the IS300, the C230K, and a first generation Cadillac CTS. The IS300 is by far a better vehicle than the IS250. Better handling, engine, and power. It's not an IS350, but the IS250 honestly drives like a GM or Ford car because it has far too little power for the weight.
The C230K - the sedan model with the 4 cylinder supercharged engine is capable of getting 35mpg highway, is agile, and extremely fun. The C class with manual was and still is the most popular model sold in Europe to real consumers that's made by Mercedes. Hardly anyone over there buys the E or S class except for fleets. The normal C230 is about the same in terms of performance, but it gets about 5mpg worse highway mileage and weighs a couple of hundred pounds more.
The CTS is a notable exception to the typical GM car. It's quick, has a great transmission that you could learn on it 15 minutes, and most of all, sells for really low prices used. The 3.6 is the one to get, because it's as advanced as anything Toyota or Honda make - and really transforms the car. The first generation ones are a bit smaller and more attractive to me as well. While I like the manual the most, I would buy a CTS with automatic, because it's a good and inexpensive unit to replace.(half the cost of the transmission in the Lexus)
People went on and on about how the interior on the CTS was bad, but honestly, it's better than a Civic. Was it price-competitive when it was new? Hardly. But as a used deal, I'd spend $12-$15K on a CTS a few years old over a new economy car without thinking twice about it. My parents did this same thing as well - bought a used higher end car instead of a new budget model. In every case their better built, better equipped and larger vehicle was better to drive and lasted longer than the ones their friends bought.
Lastly, new VS used - used has lots less sales tax, is less money per month, has less initial registration, and you can usually drive cars like this for about a 2K a year depreciation since the initial 3-4 years took out 40-50%. Buying a car for $12-15K and selling it 5 years later for $6K is a lot better than Buying new and eating $6K in the first year.
Today we drove the RAV4 Limited. Yes, suspension is softer, which means that it doesn’t handle as well and it has more body lean. However, one can still feel every road imperfection. Next, we test drove CR-V EX-L. What an amazing vehicle! It looks very nice inside, very comfortable with very good handling. It absorbed bumps better than the RAV4, while it corners with less body lean. Interior and ride reminds me of the previous generation Acura TSX. If RAV4 has interior and ride of a subcompact, CR-V is like an entry level luxury sedan. Oh, and the acceleration is normal. It’s not fast, it’s not slow, it’s just normal.
We were so excited about the CR-V that we took it home to show to our kids. They poop-pooped all over it. There is not enough leg room in the back, which is true, I am 6 1 and I couldn’t sit there without my knees touching the front seat. No DVD, no XM, no sunshade, seats don’t lean back far enough. They only want the minivan. :mad:
To make the long story endless, after all this drama we are back to were we started from, another Odyssey. However, she told me that in four and half years after kids go to college we are shopping again. Can't wait
I hope that the adults had some issues with the CR-V along with the kids. Otherwise, we'd wonder who was in charge of the family.
In all honesty, because of all the issues with our current van, we had to take my Acura TL on a seven hour road trip. By the end of the trip the kid behind me was in tears because he was so uncomfortable that he developed cramps in his legs.
I know our kids are spoiled, but if we can “buy” some piece and quiet on our many long distance trips, might as well.
Is there some urgency to buy now? July is just a few months away.
tidester, host
SUVs and Smart Shopper
'17 Chevy Volt Premiere
We were just out of minivan years and then had more family. I think we're on our last one but we'll see. There are loads worse fates than an Ody.
And each van was nicer/more comfortable/quicker (and more loaded) than the previous one (currently have a current generation Odyssey EX-L). Loaded up like an Acura.
It is a bit large for daily use, and we rarely need the extra seats at this point (but still nice when people visit). I am sure the room will come in handy next fall when child #1 goes off to college.
My wife has already said she wants something smaller (and non-vanish) when it is time to replace the Ody. Will likely be a cross-over type (or maybe a true station wagon like a Volvo). Don't need AWD, but we will want a wagon back for ahuling, and my wife does like sitting up a little higher. SOmehting the size of an Equinox would be about right.
2020 Acura RDX tech SH-AWD, 2023 Maverick hybrid Lariat luxury package.
We're on our second Ody but previous generation - an 04 EX.
We had a ’95 Windstar that needed a new engine in ’99 (fixed under ESP). Traded that for 2000 Accord, and used ’98 Exploder until ‘04 as our family truckster. In 04 leased Ody EXL for $330 per month (good old days). In ’07, got EXL w/ R&N. The ’07 is going to be replaced with ’09 EXL w/ R.
Would you go with the Ford Focus (S or SE), Hyundai Elantra (GLS), or Toyota (Base or LE) Corolla?
I hear they are much better these days. I sure hope so.
The resale value exceeds the Ford and Hyundai by leaps and bounds.
'11 GMC Sierra 1500; '08 Charger R/T Daytona; '67 Coronet R/T; '13 Fiat 500c; '20 S90 T6; '22 MB Sprinter 2500 4x4 diesel; '97 Suzuki R Wagon; '96 Opel Astra; '08 Maser QP; '11 Mini Cooper S
Anyway, manual is absolutely not an option for me. I live in Los Angeles and the traffic here is a nightmare, it's not worth the headache of a manual. Seriously, I would never drive because I would want to drive the car off a cliff.
I'm not a fan of the CTS, it seems too big and the look just isn't what I want. I love the Lexus for the interior, the BMW for the exterior, and the MB for the exterior. MB seems to have the worst resale, and Lexus the best (Lexus 2 year old car is only valued $6K under what I can get an '09 for, so that's pretty good). BMW pays first 2 payments so that helps with depreciation by a little over $1000. I'm going shopping again today, I'll report back. Thanks for the help so far!
The Mercedes and BMWs are terrible - rock bottom in fact on their automatics and electrical systems that go with them(stability control/etc). Manuals have none of that but don't generally need it, either, as it's harder to not pay attention, IME, with a manual.
That leaves the first generation CTS and the Lexus. The IS300 is a *far* better car than the new IS250. More power, a couple of hundred pounds lighter, slightly smaller footprint, better transmission, better engine, and used, they are nearly indestructible. Oh - and affordable. We're talking new Civic or Corolla prices used.
The IS300 handles about 95% as good as the BMW 3 series. It used the same tried and true sport sedan formula. Inline 6 engine up front and RWD. It's a fantastic vehicle. The IS250 honestly is too soft and drives like a Buick or Mercedes by comparison. The IS300 was and still is the only car out of Japan in the last 20 years that has a strictly European feel to it. It reminded me a lot of the Volvo 850 or the late 90s BMW 3 series when I was test driving it.
*note - the "test drive" was going 40-50 mph around the ring road around the island of dealerships in Ontario, CA. It's a 2-3 mile loop with several intersections and no traffic at all. It has paddle shifters on the wheel, so you can manually shift the automatic as well. The gearing on the automatic is set up to be nearly identical to the manual as well.
http://www.canadiandriver.com/ctc/blog/sedans/lexus-is300-vs-new-is250.htm
IS250: Softer suspension. 11 less HP. Almost 200 lbs more weight. Several inches wider and longer. Better look and feel/bling but it's lost its soul. It's Toyota and not a real Euro competitor. A 2005 IS300 that's certified is a perfect choice.
****
The First generation CTS is also like this - it's noticeably lighter, smaller, and more pleasing to look at than the new one. With the 3.6 VVT engine in it, it flies down the road - and based upon tests around the Nurburgring, it competes nearly toe to toe with a BMW 5 series. It's not your father's Cadillac. This thing has serious teeth. Oh - and it seats 5 pretty comfortably.
Get a dark color. They look better that way.
Yes, everyone looks at it and goes "ack - a GM!". Then they see the silly low prices used and say "I guess I'll test drive it..." :P And their mind warps because nothing fits with their image of old men and soft floating driving. It's fun and an honestly good car. I'd much rather own one than a boring Camry or Accord.
Oh - did I mention half the cost to fix the transmission and a 100K drive train warranty?
If you like the interior of one car better, and you're going to spend a lot of time commuting, that is a big thing to think about. You don't drive a car on the outside.
With both the BMW and Lexus, slightly used CPO might be the way to go. Let us know what you decide!
'17 Chevy Volt Premiere
Anyway, I'm deciding today.. this is scary!!!
But it's your choice I guess. Other people lurk here and read this as well I suspect, and so my advice stands. The IS250 isn't as good a vehicle as the one it tried to replace. And the 0-60 times are a lie as well - they abuse it on a test track by redlining it and dropping it out of neutral, then manually shifting the automatic to 2nd gear and leaving it there until they hit 60mph.(or selecting winter mode and starting in 2nd and doing nothing) Looks great on paper but nobody drives like this, ever.
The IS250 drove like every Toyota or GM sedan I've ever driven in that it requires you to flog it to get it to move. Quick transitions in comfort just don't happen, because it's lacking in torque and the gearing it set a mile long between gears.
They tend to stuff a smaller engine in a large sedan and make due via the transmission. 28-30mpg but even under full throttle, you can wind it out to over 60mph in 2nd gear. 3rd and 4th aren't even close to the power band even at 60-70mph. In fact, I once calculated the speed you'd have to achieve in a Camry in top gear to get the rated HP and it was nearly 140mph. In other words, 100% of the time in normal driving, you're only able to use 1/2 to 2/3 of the rated power due to gearing. Adding more gears to the automatic just exacerbates the problem unless they gear it properly. Toyota doesn't. BMW does.
Yes, it's "quieter and more refined", but only because the engine is always lugging along at 1/3 red line like a diesel. Just without a diesel's torque to back it up.
Now the IS350 is a better car than the IS300, but that's because they stuffed a bigger engine in it and added a sport package. That kind of makes it closer to a G35, but it's certainly not a small agile car. It felt more like a muscle car to me than anything else.
The only other small sedan that I would recommend would be the Subaru Impreza. It's small, quick, inexpensive, and a blast to drive. Of course, it's about the only small sport sedan on the market any more...
Oh and the Mustang is $5000 and the Focus is $5250, so there isn't much of a price difference.
What do you guys recommend or think would be the better buy?
He will be driving more, curse less, and always arrive at his destination with a smile!
That's right because as we all know, Hondas never break down, need no maintence and don't even require gas to make them go. :P
As to answering the OP REAL question--The Mustang would be more fun to drive from a psychological standpoint but would be more likely to have been abused. The Focus would be more reliable.
2019 Kia Soul+, 2015 Mustang GT, 2013 Ford F-150, 2000 Chrysler Sebring convertible
1) Where does your nephew live? The Mustang, as you know, is RWD, while the Focus is FWD .. better for areas that see bad weather.
2) I wouldn't necessarily assume that the Mustang has been "abused". A V6 Mustang may have been owned by the proverbial "secretary" and been babied its whole life. Besides, the 'Stang has averaged about 8K miles per year, the Focus 17K.
3) Utility .. the Mustang has a relatively small trunk, while the Focus, depending on the body style, has either a slightly larger trunk (with fold down rear seats) or a hatchback.
4) Fun to drive .. I owned an '03 Focus ZX5 and it was a blast to drive; have rented Mustangs and found them fun, but in a different way.
At the end of the day, it's all about what your nephew wants. My son recently bought a '98 Mustang V6 with about 80K on the clock and he (and everyone else) tells me it's in fantastic condition.
I'd have both cars checked out by a competent mechanic before making a decision.
I'm an Australian moving to the US in a month and I will need to buy a car fairly quickly, so I'm trying to get a shortlist together. I currently drive a 2004 RAV4 which has been perfect but I'd like to try something different.
What I'm looking for: used mid-size sedan/coupe or small to mid-size SUV. Something with a good reputation for reliability, preferably also under warranty. I don't have a preference for 4 or 6 cyl., as long as it doesn't struggle when passing or driving up hills. I will likely be coming back in 3-4 years, so good resale value is a plus, as is low insurance and maintenance costs . Extras such as leather, sunroof, climate control not required but also would be a bonus. It will be used for a very short daily commute as well as shopping and the odd road trip so fuel economy is less important, but 20 MPG or better would be ideal.
Budget is around $17,000
The list I have so far:
Sedans
2007/2008 Nissan Altima 2.5L
2009 Hyunai Sonata 2.4L (poor resale?)
2008 Ford Fusion V6
2008 Saturn Aura V6
2007 Honda Accord coupe
2008 VW Jetta (reliability concerns?)
2008 Mazda 6
SUVs
2008 Nissan Rogue
2007 Mazda CX-7 (turbo engine a concern?)
2007 Hyundai Santa Fe (poor resale?)
2006 Nissan Murano (would be out of warranty) (too big for a single twentysomething?)
What do you think? This list is WAY too long, I need help to cut it down. The sensible part of me says get a sedan but I think I really want an SUV.
Any advice is much appreciated! Thanks
I don't think any of the vehicles in your list are poor choices. You might restrict your purchase decision to vehicles that still have some manufacturer warranty for some added peace of mind. You might also consider a Mitsu Outlander SUV from 2007 or so. I'm starting to enter the small SUV market and liked the Outlander a fair bit more than the Santa Fe.
What part of the US will you be relocating to? Is it to the north, i.e. an area where winters are more severe (snow, cold) or the south where having strong air conditioning is of value? Hilly or mountainous (where an AWD SUV might help)?
I agree with the previous poster about the resale issue with the Hyundais on your list. There are a lot of folks who quite happy with them but they haven't built up that long-term reliability reputation yet so they get killed in resale early on.
Have you considered leasing?
'11 GMC Sierra 1500; '08 Charger R/T Daytona; '67 Coronet R/T; '13 Fiat 500c; '20 S90 T6; '22 MB Sprinter 2500 4x4 diesel; '97 Suzuki R Wagon; '96 Opel Astra; '08 Maser QP; '11 Mini Cooper S
I have thought about leasing, it does have advantages - new car, full warranty, no hassle of selling when I leave - but I have no credit history in the US and I assumed this would make leasing difficult and more expensive. Does anyone have experience with this situation?
I'll also look for slightly older Hyundais, because the resale issue explanation makes lots of sense. The Hyundais get very good reviews and come with just about every gadget and safety feature anyone would need, which makes them stand out above some of the competition.
MODERATOR /ADMINISTRATOR
Need help navigating? [email protected] - or send a private message by clicking on my name.
Share your vehicle reviews
I don't think good resale is a "strong point" when one is buying a used car...
-Mathias