Edmunds dealer partner, Bayway Leasing, is now offering transparent lease deals via these forums. Click here to see the latest vehicles!

What's the best vehicle for my needs?

12223242527

Comments

  • fezofezo Member Posts: 10,384
    Personally, I'd lose the Aveo off that list, but that is more of a personal preference. A big chunk of the good news these is that while overall prices are up it's become darned near impossible to buy a truly bad car.

    I'd take any of the others on your list. Mitsubishis are greatly underrated. nothing wrong with them and they are a bit more fun to drive than your average bear.

    You'll be fine.
    2015 Mazda 6 Grand Touring, 2014 Mazda 3 Sport Hatchback, 1999 Mazda Miata 2004 Toyota Camry LE, 1999.
  • placeboeffectplaceboeffect Member Posts: 11
    This is so amazingly helpful. Thank you so much.

    I'm leaning towards cars that have a negative bias but are actually really good cars. That way I don't have to spend money on "cool". So knowing that Mitsubishi and Kia fit in that catagory is really helpful.

    Thanks also for the heads up on small car suspension. For the past eleven years we haven't really driven anything except rental cars when we needed them so I have genuenly no idea what to expect. Plus, we need to buy a car in such a short time frame I need to balance a good decision with a quick decision.

    I'm sure I'll have more questions after I call/visit these places and test drive the cars. Thanks to everyone and keep the opions comming. :)
  • plektoplekto Member Posts: 3,738
    edited October 2011
    What I'm seeing online (haven't called any of these places yet to see if they will go lower) in our new price range of 8-10K are:

    Chevrolet Aveo (2006 - 2010)
    Kia Spectra/Optima/Rio (2005-2009)
    Hyundai Sonata/Accent/Elantra (2005-2010)
    Toyota Yaris (2007)
    Mitsubishi Galant/Lancer (2006-2008)
    Nissan Versa (2007-2009)


    Most (but not all) of these vehicles are cheap entry-level cars and lack safety features and more importantly, MASS that you would need in a crash. Everyone talks about parking, but I never had a problem at all in San Fransisco with a normal sized sedan.

    You really need to settle for something that gets a solid 25mpg or so and is cheap to buy and keep running. Anything imported, though, will cost you a lot extra. ion the long run as it ages.

    I still keep coming back to the GM 3.8L/4 speed automatic combination is it's as bulletproof as it got for those years. Especially since the hills there are hard on transmissions. You want cheap and solid, and the cheapest and most durable transmission is built by GM. As it should be since they make 99% automatics for the last ~40 years. (most manuals that they do offer are not actually made by them, btw) You also want a car with enough power to get UP those hills. Than means a V6 engine unless you like manuals.

    GM transmission: $1500 to fix.
    Toyota transmission: $3500 to fix.
    That buys a lot of gas. No joke - considering that you are buying used, the transmission potentially being replaced has to be factored into it. And currently, these old GM 4 speed transmissions are the least expensive to replace aside from the ones used in Ford's Crown Victoria/etc.

    That said, You want a car with a 3800 series III engine if you are looking at GM. Ignore *all* other engine types as this was the best they made.

    (from wikipedia)
    This engine was used in the following vehicles:

    * 2004–2008 Pontiac Grand Prix - 20/30 mpg (original sticker, easy to exceed with cruise on) 25mpg combined. Basically a cheaper alternative to a Camry.

    * 2005–2009 Buick LaCrosse - 20/29 mpg (again, original EPA sticker) - nicer car by far.

    * 2006–2008 Buick Lucerne - 19/28 mpg.

    BTW, my record for a 3800 engine was 38mpg using hypermilling techniques. 30mpg on the highway is very easy to do, even with 4 people in the car. I routinely would get 400 miles out of a tank of gas going from Santa Rosa to San Fransisco and back. Just keep the tires properly inflated and have a light foot. Use cruise control all the time and remember that even 150-200 ft behind a big rig cuts your fuel usage down by 15-20%. Oh, and wax it every 2-3 weeks. That's 1 mpg right there.

    Drive a Grand Prix. It's actually a pretty decent vehicle despite the looks.

    It's also easier to drive on steep hills as it has a console mounted in-line shifter. (1,2,3,4 all in a straight line). This makes selecting 1st for a steep hill as easy as a manual. But without the clutch to burn out. Most automatics these days only let you select 2nd, which means on steep hills, that it will be constantly going back and forth between the two gears. And it's dead-simple to use as a makeshift sequential manual, like the old Hurst automatics from the 70s were.

    http://sfbay.craigslist.org/eby/cto/2626788243.html
    Something like this is very good. That's $5K saved compared to those smaller imports, and at ~$200 a year more in gas, that difference would take you 20+ years to make up.

    Lastly, insurance is cheaper on the GM car. It's absolutely theft-proof as well, as the parts are not worth anything to a professional auto thief.
  • placeboeffectplaceboeffect Member Posts: 11
    This is also really useful information and something we really do need to consider. How do you determine the safety information? The only place I've seen that info is here on Edmunds but I'm sure it can be found elsewhere. Thank you too for the advice on the engine. That is something I would never know unless someone specifically pointed it out.

    Although San Francisco does have some notorious hills, they will not be something we will be encountering very often. We are basically going to be going 5 miles to pre-school twice a week on the highway and to the grocery store once a week. I would *love* to find a manual but it seems really hard to find a used car with one. Manuals have always seemed like better cars to me in general and it's my understanding that they are cheaper to fix but I don't know if that's true.

    Thanks for the help and suggestions. Any and all advice is appreciated.
  • sebring95sebring95 Member Posts: 3,241
    edited October 2011
    Just keep in mind that with that type of driving you're going to get city mpg or less on whatever you buy. Of course you're talking about only putting at most 2,000 miles on the vehicle a year. Your annual fuel costs would be:

    Avg 10mpg = $780
    Avg 20mpg = $390
    Avg 30mpg = $260

    In this case you could drive a Hummer and not save much over a typical car (20mpg). It's not going to matter if it's a 4cyl or 6cyl in a typical sedan, you're probably going to get 15-20mpg because the first five miles will be a cold engine that drinks the fuel regardless (unless you buy a hybrid).

    So if that's honestly all the driving you're going to be doing, I would throw mpg out the window and buy something safe (agree bigger is better in most cases) and comfortable to drive. How do you feel about minivans? A 2004 Sienna can be had for sub $10k and will hold its value and should be quite reliable if you stick to base models without all the electronic goodies. You get a TON of safety there and economy won't be any worse than a sedan with your type of driving. Granted as Pleko mentioned these will be more expensive than a basic GM to fix but realistically if it's been cared for it will go 200k miles easily without problems, the same as most any vehicle these days.

    On the sedan side you should be able to find nice 2004-2006 Accords, Camrys, Impala. I personally would go Impala over a Grand Prix because the latter is uncomfortable. The bad part about the Impala and Camry is they likely started life as a rental car which I wouldn't recommend. Accords are pretty much never sold into rental fleets so that gives it the upper hand in my book. And if something changes and you don't need a car they're easy to dump and not lose much money. Outside of the V6 models the accords are pretty much bullet-proof in that age range and I think for what you get they're an excellent value.
  • fushigifushigi Member Posts: 1,459
    For safety ratings there are two US organizations: IIHS - http://www.iihs.org/ratings/default.aspx and the federal government - http://www.safercar.gov/ Both do crash tests, with IIHS doing from the insurance industry's perspective; i.e. your insurance ratings may in part depend on a vehicle's IIHS rating.

    Be advised, though, that not every vehicle is tested. With mass-market autos, they'll generally be tested every time it matters. Which means that when an "all new" car comes out it'll be tested. The year after probably won't be unless changes that the automaker thinks would (positively) impact the ratings are made. For instance, a car gets a 3 star gov't rating so for the next model year they revise the seats or airbag deployment speed; the automaker would probably want to re-test to see if they can move from 3 to 4 stars.

    So if you look up a 2007 car and don't find result, try 2006, 2005, etc. until you find it.

    There's a European agency that tests cars for European consumption, which will generally include a good number of cars that are also available in the US. But discount their results as cars built for the Euro market can have different safety equipment as consumer laws are different.

    For engine feedback or other questions about handling, comfort, etc., look to forums at Edmunds and, possibly, forums specific to the brand/model you're looking at. If wondering about the engine in, say, the Sonata, just post a question in the appropriate Sonata thread. Ask about repair costs, maintenance requirements that may be outside the norm, and what problems the engine family has had.

    Modern automatics are pretty reliable. I don't think I'd base a buying decision on reliability; rather base it on availability or what you actually want (unless you spot an inordinate number of posts that would indicate a unit is problematic). Also, of late the economy advantage previously held by manuals has all but disappeared. They are sometimes an MPG better but sometimes the ATs are better.
    2017 Infiniti QX60 (me), 2012 Hyundai Elantra (wife)
  • plektoplekto Member Posts: 3,738
    Manuals are better than automatics, because a clutch is $200 plus labor. But if you aren't good at driving one, you'll toast them every year in the Bay Area.

    As for safety, the real list to look at is here:
    This is insurance claims and is weighted to consider all vehicles on the road. So smaller cars are worse off than SUVs, as you'd expect. This is far more realistic than just smashing stuff into a car or vice-versa.

    http://www.iihs.org/research/hldi/composite_cls.aspx?y=2004-2006
    A good example is to compare the larger Buicks and Toyotas to the smaller cars. The best compromise might be a manual SUV with a 4 cylinder engine. But these are hard to find.
  • billybob00billybob00 Member Posts: 2
    I ride a motorcycle to work on most days. It recently dawned on me that I don't really need a car -- other than when it rains or is too cold, or when I need to carry something heavy.

    I envision this car sitting in my garage most days. But, when duty calls, it needs to be ready to go.

    Here are my requirements:

    -Budget of $5000
    -Relatively low maintenance.
    -Cheap to insure (less than $100/mo)
    -Something 'unique' and different. Since I'm not worried too much about gas mileage, I thought I might as well have fun with it. I DONT want a sedan

    Ideas I've had
    -Jeep Wrangler, Suzuki Samurai
    -Ford Ranger
    -Older sports car (camaro, corvette, etc)
    -Ford T-Bird
    -Chrysler Conquest

    As you can see, my ideas for a car are all over the place. I'm basically browsing Craigslist and seeing what $5k can buy.
  • qbrozenqbrozen Member Posts: 32,863
    To be perfectly honest, if you see more value in a $10k Aveo, Rio, Accent, or Yaris than a $5k Accord, there isn't much I can do to help you with your decision.

    '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

  • Kirstie_HKirstie_H Administrator Posts: 11,142
    Your list is a bit confusing. Ford T-Bird? That is one honkin' HUGE sedan, yet you don't want a sedan.

    Older sports car = not likely low maintenance, not likely low insurance

    Wrangler - hold their value well, so for $5K you're looking at one that is WAY miled up and/or in bad condition.

    The more "unique" or different the vehicle, the harder it is going to be to find parts and, potentially, service.

    So far, I'd say the Ranger is your best bet.

    MODERATOR /ADMINISTRATOR
    Need help navigating? [email protected] - or send a private message by clicking on my name.
    Share your vehicle reviews

  • billybob00billybob00 Member Posts: 2
    Fair enough. The list is confusing because I'm not sure what I want yet :)

    So I guess I should take back what I said about no sedans.

    How about -- given the budget of $5k, what would you buy, for each of these:

    -Truck
    -Sedan
    -SUV/Jeep
  • placeboeffectplaceboeffect Member Posts: 11
    I'm sorry, I'm a little confused by your response. I know absoultly nothing about cars haveing not paid any attention to them whatsoever for 11 years.

    All I was saying was that the particular 5K cars that we looked at (not just Accords but *anything* we looked at in the 5K rage) were in really rough shape (hail damage, needing a new clutch, rusted through exterior, or missing interior for example). That does not seem like something I want to pay five thousand dollars for. When I searched through avalible cars at the higher price range (which was 8-10K) these were the some of the cars that were coming up that also seemed to be in acceptable condition. I think these particualr cars were more towards the 8K area.

    I was *asking* if any of these would be a good value, not stating that they were. I am in absolutly no possition to judge. You seem to be suggesting that a rusted out Accord for 5K is still a better value than a good condition Aveo, Rio, Accent, or Yaris for 8K. Prehaps that is the case. I don't know. That's why I asked the question.

    I have not seen any of these cars in person. We have to rent a car to go car shopping. My husband has to take off work and we have to drag our three year old with us. I'm trying to get as much information as I can before we go to test drive cars. I need to have a few types of cars to look at so that I don't get overwhelmed by choices. Thanks to other responses I have received on this forum I have already removed the cars that you addresss out of consideration. If you have any useful sugestions or recomendation I would welcome them. However, please don't belittle me for my lack of knowledge. That is what I am trying to rectify and in a very short time frame.
  • plektoplekto Member Posts: 3,738
    I have the perfect car for you. It's the least expensive to run and maintain Toyota made in the last 10 years as well, based upon parts cost and labor/complexity.

    Look at a last generation Toyota Celica with a manual transmission. It's "different", handles great (fast, too) , is cheap as dirt to run, gets good fuel economy, and is perfect for getting around on rainy days and so on since you are only carrying 1-2 people at most. Toyota was *so* stupid to replace it with the much worse in every category Scion TC. Heavier, worse steering feel, worse suspension, worse fuel economy... sigh. (minor rant mode off)

    http://www.autotrader.com/fyc/vdp.jsp?ct=p&car_id=306873461
    A typical example. Not your typical jellybean-mobile.

    The other option would be an old truck. Anything with manual and 4 cylinders. A mid 90s Tacoma 4X4 is a perfect example (4 cylinder, short bed, standard cab). Depreciation on it should be nearly non-existent as well, due to the demand with the off-roading crowd for these.

    http://www.autotrader.com/fyc/vdp.jsp?ct=p&car_id=306880573
    This is a typical example. Very little to go wrong.

    Why manual? better performance out of a smaller engine, more fun to drive, potentially ~2K less to fix if the transmission dies (ouch?), can be manually started if the starter dies, can be shifted without a clutch in a pinch (good enough at least to get you to the shop) and many other reasons. If cheap and functional is a key requirement, manuals are your best bet. Doubly so with 4WD, since automatics tend to go brain-dead in mud, snow, and in dirt/rocks.

    Note - my last truck that I had (4Runner, same exact platform/chassis) had nearly 400K on it when I sold it. The original transmission lasted roughly 320K. A heavy duty replacement was ~$1200. Dropped the old one and put in the new one. (all new internals, had to break it in as if it was factory fresh). The truck is still running around in N. Cal last I heard.

    I'd personally buy one of these with 150K on it without a second thought.
  • qbrozenqbrozen Member Posts: 32,863
    Did you get to go see any of the cars I posted by any chance? I'm not sure what it is you have gone to see at this point. You SHOULD be able to find a nice reliable car for under $5k.

    If you raise your pricepoint, that's fine, too, of course, but I wouldn't scrape the bottom of the barrel and look at these entry level econoboxes. They are the cheapest cars new for a reason (cheaply built). Step up just a tad, at least. Rather than the Versa, look at the Sentra. Rather than a Yaris, a Corolla. Etc.

    '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

  • robr2robr2 Member Posts: 8,805
    Have you considered using Zipcar instead of buying a car? If that is all you really plan to do, then Zipcar may work and be less expensive than owning a car.
  • jprince11jprince11 Member Posts: 2
    hello all, I inherited a 03 bmw 325 from my family. It's a good car but I got it with a little over 100k miles on it which is a little much for me to make a long term commitment, even though I know bmws are usually very reliable.

    I'd like to take advantage of it's value while I can and so possibly trade it in for a similar type of car with less miles on it, one choice I found was a 99 mercedes kompressor with only 33000 miles on it, 99 is a little older than I would want to go but that mileage number really stood out to me; that's like a new car to me pratcically, another choice is a 2001 330 bmw with about 66000 miles on it; this also has the bigger engine that I like

    both of these cars are under 10,000 so I should be able to make a pretty clean trade with maybe a thousand or two thousand more spent on my part, this might appear to be a little strange to spend more money for an older car so I wanted to get opinoins on it, I've always thought mileage was the dominant factor in car life so this would make sense to me, however I'm a little jaded because i had an 86 mercedes that just recently really started to fall apart on me; it still had under 150,000 miles on it so I would have expected it to last longer but I have a feeling it is not going to last much longer (the engine is still as smooth as ever but I think I can feel the transmission start to slip and it's broken down on two other issues which needed replacements recently)

    my main issue is I just want a car that will last another good 10 yrs for sure, hopefully more; I only drive about 7-8 k a yr anyway so the car I have right now might have a shot, I'd also like opinions on the selections, thanks
  • qbrozenqbrozen Member Posts: 32,863
    well, my completely personal and biased opinion would be to get the 330 if it truly is a straight trade (which I doubt). I'm not sure I'd throw any money into the mix if it were me. Unless you could sell your Benz for $2k and use that and the 03 bmw to get the deal done.

    Without knowing all of the specifics of every car, I can't help with the numbers, but you didn't ask about that, so I assume you've got that all under control.

    There is nothing wrong with a slightly older car with lower miles. Just as long as its "slightly." As your '86 Benz shows you, there is a limit to how old of a car you should be relying on for your daily transportation.

    '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

  • robbiegrobbieg Member Posts: 346
    If I was in your position I would stick with the 325i assuming it has been maintained. Better than the unknown that comes with buying a used car.
  • sebring95sebring95 Member Posts: 3,241
    Agree with Rob. Making any of your choices last 10 more years could be a difficult proposition regardless of miles. Knowing what you've got to work with is a huge advantage.
  • Sandman6472Sandman6472 Member Posts: 6,948
    Ditto!!

    The Sandman :) :sick: :shades:

    2023 Hyundai Kona Limited AWD (wife) / 2015 Golf TSI (me) / 2019 Chevrolet Cruze Premier RS (daughter #1) / 2020 Hyundai Accent SE (daughter #2) / 2023 Subaru Impreza Base (son)

  • jprince11jprince11 Member Posts: 2
    yeah the only thing I can say to the unknown factor is the mercedes I saw the carfax for and it had a very clean history except for one battery change; I did have the 86 mercedes for about 8 yrs reliably (and it wasn't in the most ideal shape when I got it since it had been leaking coolant and oil for years) and it was only around the 22-23 year mark I started having problems

    so I would hope these cars if in without any problems right now would last at least that long, I suppose there is also the option of spending a bit more money and upgrading to something newer however
  • carbuyer4647carbuyer4647 Member Posts: 1
    I've driving a lot of miles these days and my gas bill is getting pretty high. I have a 2006 Toyota Tacoma V6. Gas mileage isn't terrible as trucks go, but I'd like to get some sort of sedan that gets 30+ highway miles. Don't want to spend anymore than I can get for the truck. Need something reliable and good for hauling two kids around. Doesn't need to be pretty. Was thinking of something like a mid-2000s Accord but that's just because it's the first thing that came to my mind. Would love to hear suggestions from knowledgeable folks. Thanks!
  • suydamsuydam Member Posts: 4,676
    For reliability you can't go wrong with a mid-2000's Accord or Camry. Camry might have a larger back seat and bigger trunk if kids and hauling are objectives. The 4 cyl. Camry easily gets 30+ mpg highway. Higher used cost than domestic cars but I think it's worth it.
    '14 Buick Encore Convenience
    '17 Chevy Volt Premiere
  • qbrozenqbrozen Member Posts: 32,863
    edited October 2011
    Tough to get too specific without knowing what you can get for you truck.

    Are you thinking of doing an even trade with a dealer or selling the truck privately first? What kind of money are we talking about? How old are the kids?

    '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

  • sebring95sebring95 Member Posts: 3,241
    Assuming your Tacoma is a 4x4, the demand is usually pretty high. Agree on the Accord as well. It doesn't sound like you're too picky just make sure you get the 4cyl as the V6 isn't as reliable or efficient obviously.
  • fushigifushigi Member Posts: 1,459
    If you're talking a mid-2000's midsize sedan, not just Accord and Camry, but pretty much all of the offerings are decent. Fusion/Milan, Sonata/Optima, Malibu, and so on can all be good options in 4 cylinder guise.
    2017 Infiniti QX60 (me), 2012 Hyundai Elantra (wife)
  • robbiegrobbieg Member Posts: 346
    I am all over the place with cars. Initially, was thinking SUV but lately I am thinking AWD sedan. Want to go used and pretty new 2009-2010. Since, I am going used Subies are out. So, what is left? The way I look at it a new Legacy can be had for about 22,000 so I want to spend less than that. The only car that I can think of is a Fusion/MKZ and I don't know if an MKZ can be had for that price. Am I missing something? Most AWD cars are more expensive brands BMW, Audi, Infiniti, etc. The only other options are a Taurus but man are those things (the new body style) pricey, or the Chrysler 300 but that is pricey too. What else is there?

    Now, I know that snow tires on a FWD car are better than a AWD with all season tire but my wife wants AWD which means that I need AWD.
  • sebring95sebring95 Member Posts: 3,241
    I've been all over this one too as I could get by with a car a lot more often than I do if I went AWD. My biggest problem with the AWD cars is the horrendous gas mileage. I mean for what you give up they're not much better than SUV/Crossovers. But if you want the performance increase the car obviously wins out. I won't buy a Subaru new or used and they've pretty much got the market locked up. I think they're good cars and the awd is far better than most of the run-o-the-mill AWD's...but I just don't like anything they have to offer.

    I think the Fusion/Milan is about the only choice in that age/price range. I would want to hold out for the 2010 on that model. The MKZ is still a little pricier and I can't see paying extra for the same car with a Lincoln name on it unless there's a specific feature you want. Gas mileage is a stinky 17/24 (for a mid-size V6 it's stinky).

    If I do it I'm really leaning towards the Charger RT. It's expensive but I get the performance I'm looking for and mpg is 15/23. V8 under the hood of a bigger better performing vehicle and I'm ok with a 1-2mpg penalty. In the end...I'll probably just keep pumping gas into my Pathfinder. Performance isn't bad and I don't have to dump $30k+. I'm getting cheap in my old age.
  • Sandman6472Sandman6472 Member Posts: 6,948
    Not cheap, just a bit more practical. Everybody has a different point where it pays to swap out a vehicle over keeping the curent ride. We're in a similar situation...the wife's '05 Mazda 3s is almost at 97.4k miles and we had to decide to keep the car and buy new shoes for it or to trade it in on a new car. She needed new tires like "now" so we had a decision to make...keep it & buy tires or plunk down about $20k or so on new. Problem is that the supply of cars she'd like isn't there and she has a pretty good short list to test drive. And we hate to rush into this big of a decision and to spend that kind of $ on when she hasn't tried everything and have a chance to discuss it with me.

    So we decided to buy the new shoes and keep the car for another year at least. Hopefully nothing big will happen where the car needs some major $ thrown at it. We'll do the 100k mile stuff...new plugs and radiator service and possibly a tranny service. But nothing else and hope we can get her a 2013 model. By that time supply will be back up and we'll have test driven everything on the short list. Time to think while accumulating more $ in the bank to purchase it outright, unless they bring back the 0% financing.

    This is the practical, financially smart thing to do to achieve the ultimate result of purchasing her a great new car. And then, by 2015 or so, it'll be my turn. With the way I'm putting on mileage now, my Civic should have under 50k miles and there will still be pretty good value left for the next owner...they will be getting a very sweet, well careed for ride. A win/win for everyone concerned!

    The Sandman :) :sick: :shades:

    2023 Hyundai Kona Limited AWD (wife) / 2015 Golf TSI (me) / 2019 Chevrolet Cruze Premier RS (daughter #1) / 2020 Hyundai Accent SE (daughter #2) / 2023 Subaru Impreza Base (son)

  • explorerx4explorerx4 Member Posts: 19,204
    I had an '07 Fusion AWD until about 6 months ago.
    It was one of those 80/20 cars.
    I liked that it did not feel front driveish and was very smooth on the highway.
    The engine sound was bad, especially when started cold.
    After that it was pretty quiet, although nailing the gas didn't sound that great either.
    The interior showed some obvious cost cutting, but the back seat had plenty on legroom and headroom for a 6ft+ adult, even with sunroof.
    Mine was rated 18/27 under the old rating system and on a long trip I could hit the highway rating. Overall, I averaged 22.25 mpg.
    The MKZ has a larger 3.5 engine.
    2023 Ford Explorer ST, 91 Mustang GT vert
  • hambonecampanahambonecampana Member Posts: 7
    edited December 2011
    I'm looking to purchase an inexpensive, older convertible (ideally a 2 seater) that I can keep for years to come as a second car. I'd like it to be reliable, fun to drive, won't plummet in value, and a car that, if something breaks, there's information out there to teach me how to fix it. I'm pretty young, and I don't know a whole lot about cars (although I am pretty handy), but if I learn on the way that's great. I don't want it to start out as a project car, but if over the years it gives me some projects, I'm okay with that. I'm thinking about an older BMW Z3. According to edmunds prices a 96 would should come in at about 4-5k. I'd also consider the Honda S2000, although the entry price seems to be about double what I could get a Z3 for (although it would be a newer car). I thought about the MR2 Spyder but heard that it has an unpleasant exhaust note, the Audi TT, but given Audi's reliability that thought concerns me, and the Miata really doesn't do anything for me visually. Are there any other cars I should seriously consider? Would appreciate thoughts from some that have gone before me. Thanks all!
  • qbrozenqbrozen Member Posts: 32,863
    edited December 2011
    Well, since you shot down the miata, the z3 is your car. Unless you want to spend the dough on the Honda, the bimmer is the only other reliable and easy to work on model. Stick with the 6 cylinder, IMHO.

    '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

  • colin_lcolin_l Member Posts: 591
    Totally agreed-- the early year 4 cylinder Z3s were terrible. Compare the inline six to the S2000s and see what you find out. I doubt the gap is as wide as you think, and the S2000 is a much faster, more sporty car than any except the M Z3 which I doubt is on the table.
  • plektoplekto Member Posts: 3,738
    You absolutely want the S2000. The resale value on BMWs is poor because they are pretty sad things used, especially the original Z3s. The Boxster also has similar engine and repair cost issues. Both drive great, but they aren't simple or basic cars. ie - they are a 2-seater convertibles and not really a light and agile roadster.

    Plus, the reason S2000s don't depreciate is because they really were instant classics.
  • qbrozenqbrozen Member Posts: 32,863
    Well, if we are comparing old ones, it doesn't amount to a whole hell of a lot. And s2ks certainly do depreciate.

    2000 z3 2.5. Original msrp 31,300. Current trade-in value with 100k miles is $4900. 15.66%
    2000 s2000. Original msrp 32,000. Current trade-in value with 100k miles is $5800. 18.13%

    That seems to hold pretty steady through the years. An '04 s2k, for instance, is worth a grand more than an '04 z4 2.5. Both were right around $33k new.

    '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

  • plektoplekto Member Posts: 3,738
    But you'll note that almost all of the lower-priced Z3s are automatics. The repair costs will also crush your wallet. And to add insult to injury, I've seen old Buicks with better interiors than a typical 10 year old BMW. They seriously don't age well. Mind you, Mercedes are also similar, so it's not specific to BMW. The S2000 is so simple that there's nothing to really break. And the engine is pretty close to bulletproof.
  • qbrozenqbrozen Member Posts: 32,863
    I don't know why you think the repair costs are any more than a Honda. I've had both and find no difference. Of course, I don't go to the dealer. Anybody who does go to the dealer has no right to complain about the cost.

    As far as "typical interior," well, I guess the one I have is completely atypical. The 30-year-old bimmer we had had bad seats, but that is typical of any convertible with black leather. They were actually still in better shape than my 30-year-old Italian leather (Alfa). I have no interest in any buick of the past 30 years, so I have no idea what those tend to look like.

    Don't know if I would call the S2k simple. Anything with a redline that high is actually fairly complex. Oil burning issues aren't terribly uncommon with the early cars. They are both fine cars. I would say their reliability is virtually even. You also stand a better chance finding a z3 that wasn't raced. The s2k is better looking, though.

    '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

  • lemmerlemmer Member Posts: 2,689
    edited December 2011
    I agree with the majority of your posts, but good grief. BMW maintenance and repair costs suck compared to a Honda. I've had a few of both. For starters, my BMWs seem to trash their brake pads and rotors every 30K miles. On my Hondas and Acuras, I tend to average about 100K on a set of pads. I've never driven one long enough to wear out the rotors. BMWs are horrible on consumables, from brake light bulbs to tires to just about anything as compared to a Honda. Plus, BMWs require more frequent and usually annoying repairs.

    Plus, I can reset the darn maintenance light on a Honda without a special tool.
  • lemmerlemmer Member Posts: 2,689
    As for the interiors, specifically in a 3 series, the E30s are really durable, the E46s are somewhat durable, and the E36s have crap interiors.

    I base this on my personal experience, looking at tons of used cars, reading Bimmer, reading BMW specific forums, etc.
  • plektoplekto Member Posts: 3,738
    And the E36 is the platform that the Z3s were based upon, especially when it came to electrical and interior construction. They really do tend to be worn-out and full of problems as they age. And what a miserable piece of Tupperware the interior is. The Z4, that's a whole other animal, though. But even then, it's really expensive to own one. I would have suggested a Mercedes SLK as well, but they are incredibly expensive to fix. $2000+ clutch jobs and so on.

    A 30 year old BMW or Mercedes? They were still making them with a lot of quality, especially for the upper-level models. So they really can't be compared to the newer models.

    A S2000 is as simple and straight forward as a Miata. But it drives and looks a whole lot better. Nobody cares about a Z3 but you will get some looks with a S2000. ;)
  • apavapav Member Posts: 1
    I need to get a car to get me back and forth from school for this year only. I will only need it for this semester (I am staying home for this semester and then going to finish my undergrad on the other side of the country, but I'll be back for breaks). My parents are buying the car for me, but I have to buy gas.

    I'm currently looking at 2 cars: a 2009 Toyota Corolla 4dr Sedan LE and a Suzuki SX4 Sport Touring FWD Sedan.

    The Corolla was nice, but it had many MANY scratches on all sides, even on the front and the rims. One side looked like it was sideswiped, because there were more scratches on that one side, on top of the clip of the front right bumper sticking out and condensation in the right side headlight. I am using the past tense because the dealer was getting someone to buffer out the scratches, fix the clip, and do a touch up with some paint, but we haven't seen it yet so I'm not sure what to think yet .I popped open the front hood and didn't see any parts crumbled, so I know if it was involved in any sort of accident or whatever to cause those scratches, it didn't effect how the vehicle runs. I test drove the Corolla. The ride was smooth, the tires didn't veer to one side if I let go of the steering wheel, and it had a nice pick-up for a four cylinder engine. The Corolla also has much better MPG and mileage compared to the Suzuki. The Corolla has about 30,000 miles and gets an estimated 27 City/35 Highway, while the Suzuki has 42,962 miles and gets an estimated 22 City/30 Highway.

    After tax and additional fee's, I'm looking around $11500 for the Corolla and $9500 for the Suzuki.

    I have yet to see the Suzuki (am going to take a look tomorrow), but assuming everything with the Suzuki is perfect (no scratches, I like how the car drives and looks) what do you guys think would be the better car?

    I'm not sure if I trust Suzuki cars, because they are less known, and to my knowledge are considered the economic-bargain cars. Also, since safety should be the highest priority, I would think Toyota is leaps and bounds ahead of Suzuki in that fashion. I'm not sure about this, but I think Suzuki doesn't have great safety ratings.

    Which car would you pick? Would you still pick the Corolla over the Suzuki, despite it still having noticeable blemishes/potential safety issues?

    If anyone is interested, the link to the Suzuki from the dealer is here:
    http://www.southshorehyundai.com/VehicleDetails/used-2009-Suzuki-SX4-4dr_Sdn_Aut- o_Sport_Touring_Pkg_FWD-Valley_Stream-NY/1491029763

    The Toyota was never listed on the dealer's website, but I listed the trim.

    Thanks guys!
  • qbrozenqbrozen Member Posts: 32,863
    The Corolla will have far far better resale value down the road.

    that being said, the Suzuki is an amazing deal if that really is your total price including taxes and all fees. That car would fetch $8k at dealer auction. Sounds like you are buying it for darned near that price.

    the Corolla actually has a similar gap. About $10k at auction... but that's for an average one. Sounds like this one may be a bit below average. But as long as it fixes up to your satisfaction, nothing wrong there.

    Make sure they have clean carfaxes!!

    '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

  • suydamsuydam Member Posts: 4,676
    Whichever one you choose, make sure to get it checked out by a mechanic first. Especially you want to find out how damaged the Corolla might have been. You can't tell just by looking under the hood. A mechanic will look for frame damage.
    '14 Buick Encore Convenience
    '17 Chevy Volt Premiere
  • steverstever Guest Posts: 52,454
    Are you an active duty or retired member of the U.S. military who recently bought a new or used car from a dealership? Do you feel like you got a better deal because of your service? Or did you ever feel that the dealer tried to invoke your military experience as a way to butter you up for a bad deal? A reporter is interested in hearing about these experiences, both positive and negative. Please send a brief overview of your experience and your contact info to [email protected] by February 5th, 2012.
  • hatchbackerhatchbacker Member Posts: 1
    I am having a really hard time deciding what car to get. I am in the market for a used car, the most I am looking to spend is 19000 (including a 3K trade in). That does not mean I want to spend that much but I definitely do not want to go pass that. What I want is a sporty fuel efficient hatchback (if that is even possible lmao). Cars I have considered: Golf TDI(2010&^), Toyota Matrix(09&^) and the Mazda 3(09), Honda CR-Z. Any opinion on this would be great.

    My question is when does a fuel efficient car end up costing more than buying a cheaper not as fuel efficient car. Any sites I can compare this at? I ask this because the VW TDI cost more than my other choices but it has better MPG. I drive the average amount.
  • sebring95sebring95 Member Posts: 3,241
    I'm a huge fan of VW TDI's past....but the new ones just seem to be a big risk. They have had problems with US Spec diesel causing major damage to the fuel system. My neighbor needed $10k in repairs and spent a ton of time fighting VW before they would make it right. I guess there's an investigation by the feds into these problems as well. A used one would be a huge risk in my book.

    Matrix might not be bad but I guess we would need to clarify what you want by "sporty"....looks, acceleration, handling...None you've listed are necessarily great in the acceleration dept.

    I'll throw out another option: MINI Cooper. Lots of fun, less common on the streets, and the S-version has good performance and economy when you're not hot-rodding it. Maybe not the most reliable option (quirky perhaps) but no risk of major problems like say the TDI.
  • fushigifushigi Member Posts: 1,459
    My question is when does a fuel efficient car end up costing more than buying a cheaper not as fuel efficient car.

    Use a spreadsheet & compare models yourself. If you don't have Excel/MS Office, you can download OpenOffice for free at http://www.openoffice.org/.

    Rows:
    Purchase Price (include tax, finance charges, etc.)
    Fuel economy: X MPG
    Anticipated life: Y miles
    Anticipated gas price: Z $
    Lifetime fuel cost = Z * Y / X

    If you're really trying to determine costs, though, add additional rows for things like:
    Insurance. The sporty car might cost more to insure. Call your agent.
    Maintenance. Frequency of oil changes and is synthetic a requirement, other routine maintenance, possibly a timing belt replacement, etc. Example: a car with a 5,000 oil change interval will need 20 oil changes over 100K miles while a car with a 7500 mile interval will only need 13.
    Odd/expensive size tires.
    License registration fees if they vary by car in your state (some do, some don't).

    Add columns for each car under consideration. At the bottom add a row for Total Cost.

    Beyond cost, though, consider other potentials. As sebring95 noted, VWs might have higher maintenance costs. Which brands do you consider to be more reliable? Which car is more fun to drive? You want a hatch. If that's for cargo capacity & not looks, does what you want to haul fit?
    2017 Infiniti QX60 (me), 2012 Hyundai Elantra (wife)
  • benrubinsteinbenrubinstein Member Posts: 1
    Hi all,

    I'm new to used vehicle buying, so would welcome any advice! I'm currently driving a 99 Subaru Forester that was pretty much a hand-me-down. It has 290k miles on it, and is in pretty good shape, but some rust damage will probably limit my trade-in value.

    I'm looking for something a little more fuel efficient and sportier. I'm looking to spend around 10k.

    In the past, I've driven a few VW Jettas/Passats and have really enjoyed driving them. I've also heard only good things about them. However, their dependability ratings are atrocious. What is the merit to the claims that these VWs are unreliable?

    I'm inclined to go with the VW for its great reputation, but if that reputation is misleading and I'd be better off with a Hyundai Elantra (which has excellent reliability ratings in the same sedan class) I'd like to know.

    Thanks!
    -Ben
  • sebring95sebring95 Member Posts: 3,241
    VW's tend to be quirky at times, but if you can do the work yourself or have a great private mechanic they're not bad vehicles. I had a Jetta Diesel for 250k miles that treated me well. It had a few issues here and there but nothing major that I couldn't fix myself. If you have to take the car to a VW dealer.... I've heard a lot of horror stories about that. Their labor rates tend to be up there with other Euro manufacturers that all happen to be luxury brands.....so paying luxury labor rates on an economy car can be hard to swallow. Parts are also pretty high and some have rather significant maintenance schedules.

    I would have a hard time picking a used Elantra over a VW, but I do prefer the way the VW's drive (particularly the older models...the newest ones have been over-Americanized in my book).

    Don't even think about trading that Subaru. A dealer won't give you anything for it compared to a private party. It will be an easy sale privately.
  • plektoplekto Member Posts: 3,738
    IMO and IME, the easiest way to upgrade a car to be more sporty is to get a car with a manual transmission. Now, I'm not talking a nasty rubbery mess like found in a lot of domestics and smaller brands but something that is almost video game easy to deal with.

    Unfortunately, most everything made in Japan is as bland as a toaster oven. Subaru and Mitsubishi are notable exceptions as they haven't quite fallen into the vanilla ice cream (aka fleet sales) trap yet. Of the stuff made in Japan, I'd look at the Impreza and the Lancer if you want sporty. Reliability is fine for both.

    If you want something from Europe, then it gets a bit trickier as the main problem with cars (especially from Germany) is that their government places stiff rules and regulations on imported parts. Why is this important? Because while the hard bits are built like no other, the electrical systems and accessories are often third rate additions. It's not the engines on a VW that die. It's the GPS, the windows, the heated seats, the right speaker, and so on. Also, since literally every car over there with automatic that's not a luxury model or SUV is used mostly for rental fleets and taxis, automatic transmissions are an afterthought. Usually poorly built and hideously expensive to fix or replace.

    A good car to consider would be maybe something like a base model C230K. Manual transmission, and even manual seats if I recall. Cloth seats is the giveaway, though. Very very little to actually break. You can also get a 3 series set up similarly, and even VWs are fine (just avoid the turbo and V6 models entirely - stick with 4 cylinder or TDI only).

    Also, another way to deal with this is to get something fancier for 6-8K and save the extra for repairs. This could be a classic, and old Porsche or BMW (like a near mint 318 or E36), Volvo (back then they made them in Europe), or similar.
Sign In or Register to comment.