Midsize Sedans 2.0

backy · November 2010

All but the base Versa have standard ABS now, so it's not as much an issue as it used to be.

One vehicle I forgot to mention is the Rondo. Probably the main competitor to the Mazda5, and a lot of room for its size--based on the current Optima platform. Seats five or, with optional rear seat, seven. I think it made someone's (CR's?) list of most overlooked vehicles.

Fusion is a very nice mid-sized car, but it seems this buyer is looking for something a little smaller outside. My favorite in that regard is probably the Elantra Touring. Positively limo-like rear seat leg room plus a huge cargo area, all the standard safety features including ESC, in a trim exterior. And a little more Euro-like in handling and styling than the Elantra sedan (since the Touring is based on the European i30).

plekto · November 2010

New vs CPO aside, the real issue is the fact that car seats are very wide and you can fit two side by side with about an inch between it and the door - and each other towards the middle. I know this, tested it in a Focus, actually, years ago. Barely fit two in the rear - and made worse by the annoying tendency of the seats to sag outwards. The center pad doesn't compress as much and the effect is a 10-15 degree tilt which places the seats almost touching the C pillars.

Just no extra space in case of a crash. They don't need something larger so much as about 8-12 inches wider. But a SUV or Minivan just kills the MPG gains. A midsize car with good gas mileage is a good option, IMO(Mazda 6? - $18K for a 2010 (NEW) with automatic 21/30mpg ). But not the only one. Some crossovers like a Subaru Forester are also nice, since they have fairly boxy dimensions.

I guess it's a bit of a pet peeve of mine, but I just cringe every time I see a tiny car with kids in it.

backy · November 2010

Check out the cars I mentioned. Most are rated highly in crash tests. (And side impact tests are irrespective of the car's size/weight--not true for frontal of course, but that's not where you were going.) Also, the Forester is based on the Impreza's platform, and isn't that wide (just 0.2 inches wider than a compact like the Elantra, and narrower than some other compacts e.g. Sentra).

Not everyone can or will drive a Crown Vic. That's what you'd need if you want another 8-12 inches in width and don't want a big SUV or full-sized minivan. (e.g. the difference in width between the mid-sized Mazda6 and compact Sentra is only 1.9 inches)

stickguy · November 2010

well, the OP said the kids wer 4 and 5 at this point. So you are basically done with the big beastly car seats, and into some sort of booster. WHich means they are way more compact.

I actually think the mazda5 is a perfect option in this cse. Lots of cargo room and flexiblity, but still gets good MPG while being compact size. The 3 is really pretty cramped in the rear seat. May not be an issue now, but could be a few years down the road as the kids grow!

also, the other debate along with new/used is size. At the 20K price point, you can get a relatively loaded compact or a base model mid size.

say, a Civic EX (with moonroof, etc.) or an Accord LX (with hubcaps and no luxo goodies). Probably the same issue with a loaded Elantra (do they make those?) vs. a strippos Sonata.

I will also 2nd the idea that the Elantra touring is a very nice car, and pretty darned roomy. But not really that cheap, especially if you get the higher line model with more features.

plekto · November 2010

The Forester since it has fairly vertical sides in the rear and and more bench-like seats keeps the boosters/car seats more upright. So there's a proper 4-6 inches between the kids and the sides of the car.

Of course, there are also mini-SUVs as well. The RAV-4 is a fine vehicle that fits every criteria and gets decent MPG. Perfect for a family of 4. But to stay in that price-range, they'd be looking at 1-2 years old.

Budget Mini-SUVs that might work for under $20K (and get high MPG ratings) are:

Jeep Patriot - $16,500 optioned out.(least expensive option) Very good incentives on 2010 models and under-appreciated, IMO. Actually is fairly reliable, unlike most Jeep models. Huge cargo area and nice driving position.

Nissan Rogue - $19K for a 2010 model. CR-V competitor, IMO. Very nice and also off of most people's radar.

MItsubishi Outlander - $19K in base trim. Just squeeks in under the 20K limit for a base model. Reliability is a plus here.

Mazda Tribute - $19K optioned out (2010 model after incentives) - Finding one is the trouble. A 2011 without incentives is about the same price as a CR-V, which is a better option.(ie - 22-23K, well past the original poster's budget)

Others exist, but they either get SUV MPG ratings or are well over 20K unless you get a stripped-out base model with zero options on it(and often a manual transmission as well) Hyundai makes one but it's almost as ugly as the new Juke - so it's really not a viable option.(the Santa Fe is too expensive - now well over 20K) Honda and Toyota are over 20K now as well. Even Ford is 21K. I omitted Suzuki, because, well, I'd rather have a Daewoo. Suzuki is probably the least reliable and enjoyable vehicle out there. They just need to give up and make motorcycles.

tlong · November 2010

One vehicle I forgot to mention is the Rondo.

Rondo has been discontinued in the states. May still be some left on lots.
The Mazda 5 will be all new revision in the spring. You might be able to get a great deal on one right now.

backy · November 2010

The Forester since it has fairly vertical sides in the rear and and more bench-like seats keeps the boosters/car seats more upright. So there's a proper 4-6 inches between the kids and the sides of the car.

The Forester has 1/2 inch more rear shoulder room than compacts like the Elantra and Sentra, and less shoulder room than mid-sized sedans. So I don't know how a small SUV like the Forester can keep booster/car seats more upright than any other vehicle of about the same size.

In fact, I don't know how this got into a discussion on SUVs... and whether they are ugly or not.

plekto · November 2010

The issue is Ford's crummy rear seats. The center of the rear seat is very thin and as a result, very much harder than the softer side positions. This makes the boosters/child seats actually tip outwards. Ie- the "bottom" area of the cushion is sized for a normal child or small adult and not something harder and more square-ish like a booster.

And the head area is severely sloped, so that the area between the shoulders and the roof comes within a couple of inches on a normal adult. The upper edge of a booster seat ends up basically resting against the C pillar after a couple of weeks of use due to all of these factors and the seat/cushion wearing in. Hatchbacks and most small cars suffer from miserable back seats like this. It's not uncommon to see a full sized child's seat so cramped that you can't actually lift the arm rest assembly fully upwards and almost have to slide the kid in from underneath it.

The geometry is just not designed with car seats in mind in any position other than just one in the center rear. The solution is, of course, a flatter and taller seating area. The Fit is a perfect example of this done right.(and is a FAR better car overall for kids than a Focus for that reason). Great cargo area, too. But that's also relative. in a crash, it's still a tiny little thing and a CRV or similar crossover type vehicle or even an Accord/Mazda6/etc would be far safer and also drive more comfortably.

Small SUVs and crossovers entered the discussion because, like it or not, they ARE safer than a typical budget compact car - some some are basically a SUV version of the same maker's compact or midsize sedan. Just lifted and with added features and space- a win-win in terms of a compromise between MPG and a bit more utility. I don't consider them to be true SUVs, so they kind of fit in several categories - part car, part wagon, part mini-van.

explorerx4 · November 2010

The thing is, the question was about mid size sedans, so it was posted in the right forum.
There are plenty of mid size sedans available for less than the price of a small SUV.

stickguy · November 2010

a 4 and 5 year old are not in full sized car seats anymore, so not really an issue for the OP.

jeffyscott · November 2010

Isn't there a trade-off on the rear seat design? When they are very flat and thus good for child car seats, then aren't they usually not so comfortable for regular passengers?

rdm925 · November 2010

First of all thanks for all the input and discussion. Secondly since the grandchildren are 4 & 5 they are still regular seats now but will soon upgrade to booster seats. Thrid my wife is currently driving a 2003 Tribute ES AWD. We thought about giving it to my daughter and getting her a CX-7, but the price of a CX-7 is to high. I like the Mazda 5 but we are not considering it. It looks like a Mazda 3 will win out. I'm concerned about spacesince she is currently driving a 99 Venture which sounds like it's going to throw a rod, but I'm letting the women work it between them. You know Mom & Daughter thing. Thanks for all the help and advice. :shades:

acdii · November 2010

I have 2, a 3 and a 5 YO, and have the convertible car seats that become boosters when they get older. I have a 2010 Fusion,and both seats fit very well in the rear, plenty of room between them so less likely to have to say, dont make me stop this car, when they are beating the crud out of each other. Fusions can be had for under 16K new depending on what you want, and the Milans may be even better deals. My fusion has on it, nearly 30K trouble free miles, in 14 months of driving. I used to have a Camry Hybrid, the seats fit in the Fusion much better. I used to have a Prius, the seats fit better in the Fusion.

As for the other poster regarding the Crown Vic. Those are probably the best used car you can buy today. Lots of room, very safe, very cheap, and get 21 MPG. They just scare non drivers because of their RWD. They are also very reliable cars, pretty much bullet proof. Police love the Vics, hate the chevy's, maintenance crews love the vics, hate the chevy's. I have had a couple myself, drove them into the ground, one had over 300k on it, before rust killed it. Not once have I ever had a problem in snow with them either, unlike with the Veracruz last year, where it darn near ditched from the rear end breaking loose in slushy snow. When that happens in FWD, game over, at least RWD gives you some control when that happens. Now I have AWD, so doesn't matter anymore.

plekto · November 2010

Yeah - I got it precisely because I needed a reliable tank for very little money. The Buick Roadmaster was also designed like this - in an attempt to win back the police and taxi market from Ford(and failed, though they are still good used cars)

I'd rather have one any day over a minivan, but it's certainly not for everyone - it parks like a whale, drives like a whale, and is zero fun to drive. (well, other than when I pull up behind someone at the local Carls Jr at 12am and they do a double-take... ) It also does hold 6 people. And that's without anyone inside. :P

Honestly, the trunk is almost the size of my uncle's Forester with the back seat down. Having driven it for a while now, it also is a LOT more stable and handles better than a typical minivan. Front wheel drive, square(wind?), and drives like a truck vs a big rwd sedan... no contest which is better at 70mph+

http://www.autotrader.com/fyc/vdp.jsp?ct=p&car_id=288314078
Three years old. The original owner must have passed away or something, since $15,500 for a three year old car with 6K on it is insane.. Of course, I have my eyes on a Pontiac GTO, but that's a whole other story - the Crown Vic is just an interim choice until next fall when the age/price points line up to within my budget. :shades:
****

That said, I've actually driven mostly mid-size sedans and these too have their gems. When I see the dealer blowing out 3 year old GM sedans like a Grand Prix with 20K on them for $12K, It makes me shake my head when I see people drive off with an Aveo or similar instead - just because it's "new". It's a boring, bland, soulless car. But it's still worlds better than a stripped down econobox.

http://www.autotrader.com/fyc/vdp.jsp?ct=u&car_id=284172815
And it still has the remainder of the factory 5/100K drivetrain warranty. Not that anything ever goes wrong at under 100K on these 3800 series engines. Something like this is the perfect choice, IMO. Compared to a broken vehicle that soon won't run at all, they'd be overjoyed I'm sure.

****
What I would do is one of two things:

1 - give them the current vehicle and get a replacement for yourselves - something CPO for under $20K. I can get used Mercedes and BMWs for under $20K, so it's literally pick whatever you want and enjoy the replacement. It won't be any older than your current vehicle and your daughter will at least know the history as well as save a ton on registration/transfer fees since it's between family members.

2 - Get them something like that Grand Prix ($14K if you insist on Certified, for a 2008 model) for the price of an econobox. Let them drive it until the wheels fall off a decade from now. My extended family has had four vehicles with that GM 3.8 engine/trans combo in them and they all were bulletproof - actually, about 20 if you count all of my relatives - not one was a lemon. Comes with traction control, maybe leather and a sunroof, the stereo plays MP3s... And it averages a consistent 25mpg in mixed driving.

The Grand Prix is essentially identical to the Buick LeSabre of the same year, other than styling. But being the "Pontiac" which is out of business (whatever - they share most of the same hard parts), they're being sold off for fire-sale prices. If you want a GM midsized car, this is the bargain of the decade. And, yes, it IS better than a Mazda 3 similar. It should be, considering it cost nearly 25K new.

imidazol97 · November 2010

The Grand Prix is a W-body midsized. The Impala is another W body.

The leSabre is an H-body and is full-sized.

plekto · November 2010

I did say that the bodies were different(kind of obvious, too). But it's virtually identical under the hood to a LeSabre from that era - bulletproof engine and drivetrain and parts aren't an issue.

note - the new Impala from 2006+ has a different engine and drivetrain combo and is substantially different than the 2008 Grand Prix, which shared more DNA with the previous generation Impala(2005 is too old I'm guessing). And of course, finding one with the 3.8 engine is a little more difficult.

In any case, most any midsize GM sedan with the 3.8 engine in it is a good choice. It gets you from point A to B and doesn't cost you a fortune to do so. Shoot, I just drove my mother's LeSabre to Las Vegas (family trip) two months ago and it was more than adequate, even at nearly 10 years old. You could also get a Buick, but they have a significant premium over any of the Pontiacs.

explorerx4 · November 2010

it would be more helpful to the poster looking for advice that you are trying to help if you confirmed the facts ahead of time, rather than having to back pedal on one thing after another.

plekto · November 2010

Still, the advice to consider mid-size sedan a couple of years old is perfectly valid. No matter what you say, a tiny car like a Focus or a Corolla or similar is just a lot less stable, reliable, and not as nice to drive as the same maker's better offerings. Nobody here would debate that a Camry, for instance, doesn't just flat-out beat a Corolla in every way except for maybe parking ease. And as they age, the better vehicle also tends to show said age to a far smaller degree. This means that a 2-5 year old medium or full size sedan will still often drive better than a brand new budget car.

http://www.autotrader.com/fyc/vdp.jsp?ct=c&car_id=288676132

Something like a used 2007 CTS is going to blow a Civic out of the water for the same money, despite being 4 years old. This also is a favorite car that I like to recommend - just a blast to drive and perfect for a small family.

fushigi · November 2010

Smaller cars will tend to cost less to buy, cost less to insure, cost less to operate due to better fuel efficiency, and potentially cost less to maintain (4 cyl. v. 6 cyl. costs, for instance). Being narrower they'll be less susceptible to door dings. Being smaller they'll fit better around all the stuff that gets stored in garages.

The Focus & Corolla are hardly "tiny". You might make that argument about the Fiesta & Yaris, and certainly could say that about smart's offerings, but not the modern compact sedan. I know an Indian family that went from an Odyssey in the US back to India where they bought a sizeable car for their area - a Hyundai Verna a.k.a. Accent.

I'll agree that buying a "gently used" car v. new is worth considering, but there are lots of factors that can impact the comparison. That CTS you linked to, for instance, gets 15-16 city, 24-25 highway depending on engine while a same-year 4 cyl. AT Camry gets 21/30 and a same-year Corolla w/AT gets 26/35. I'd bet dollars to donuts that the CTS will cost a lot more to insure as well. If you're on a budget - and if you need to seat three kids then you're definitely on a budget - the CTS is a poor choice from a cost perspective.

rdm925 · November 2010

My apologies Plekto and all the others. I haven't had the time to monitor the forums like I should. We (my wife & daughter) have decided on the Mazda 3 sedan for a variety of reasons. The discussion of best cars for child seats has been very helpful.
Thanks, for the advice and help.
:shades:

plekto · November 2010

Anyone who is on a super-tight budget to where a few mpg will bankrupt them needs to be looking at stuff in the $5K range. It's a LOT cheaper to insure a used CTS than a new Corolla, just because it's used vs new. The initial registration and fees, already put you 1-2K behind with the new vehicle. Just look at the TCO calculator on this site - the initial hit for the first four years, even on a Corolla, just looking at fees, insurance, and depreciation, ads up to a lot of money.

The whole point of a larger car is that it drives better at higher speeds, carries more cargo and passengers, is generally safer in a crash, is built better, and often has options that the smaller car just doesn't have. Oh, and it goes a LOT faster as a rule. 250HP+ for a V6 is pretty much common these days. That CTS with the 3.6 does 0-60 in 6.0 seconds. A Corolla? 10.1. It's dog slow by comparison and it gets even worse when you hit the bends.

The fuel difference isn't that huge, either. That's 172 gallons of fuel more for the CTS per year (12K miles a year, 21 vs 30mpg average) That's $516 more in fuel a year at $3 a gallon. I can live with that, given how much more the fees and insurance and so on run on the "new" car versus a 4 year old one.

I've run the numbers over the years many many times and new small versus used mid-size is a wash. Even after you calculate in repairs and fuel and everything else. It's going to cost you the same in the end, or close enough that you've got to be seriously poor to notice the difference.

Note - I chose the CTS as a worst-case example, because there's nothing "economy" about it. Something like a Malibu is quite a bit more realistic. At 3 years old, you can get it for the price of a new Yaris. And it gets a consistent 26mpg combined.

stickguy · November 2010

Must be different in your state. In NJ, new vs. used is not different. same registrtion costs per year, and the insurance sucks no matter what you drive, but the cost is driven by which rate class you are in, and worth of the car. SO almost guaranteed a 4 YO CTS is more than a new Corolla.

And tax is based on what you pay for it, so a wash.

Something else you are overlooking is finance costs. Yes, it is better to pay cash, but the majority of people have to finance, and normally the new rates are a lot lower than used rates (and esier to do).

repair costs depend heavily on what state the car is in that you buy. If it is 4 YO and on original tires and brakes, those costs will hit you where you won't get any on the new car.

finally, there is time horizon. If you have a limti on age (say, 8 years), you have to do 2 used cars in the time period of 1 new car. So, double up all those purchase costs.

fushigi · November 2010

"It's a LOT cheaper to insure a used CTS than a new Corolla, just because it's used vs new."

They both have the same value (based on purchase cost) so there should be little difference in insurance cost from that. A CTS will cost more to repair than a Corolla, though, since luxury parts are priced higher. So the insurance companies will charge more for the CTS. Don't even think of asking us to believe that the front fender or taillight assembly - brand new OEM in both cases - cost more on a Corolla than a CTS.

"The initial registration and fees, already put you 1-2K behind with the new vehicle."

There's no difference where I live. Titles cost the same regardless of year, make, or model. Ditto plates. If that's not the case where you live, take it up with your government.

"Just look at the TCO calculator on this site - the initial hit for the first four years, even on a Corolla, just looking at fees, insurance, and depreciation, ads up to a lot of money. "

You just shot yourself in the foot. I just used TCO with my zip code (Chicago suburbs) on a new 2010 Corolla and a used 2007 CTS. 5 year TCO on the Corolla is $28,988 and $44,308 on the CTS.

The Caddy costs >$15K over the Toy.

Oh, and the Caddy was more expensive to insure buy up to about $100 a year.

"The whole point of a larger car is that it drives better at higher speeds, .."

Depends on the car & how well it's been maintained. And the lack of size of sports cars in general would run counter to your claim.

".. carries more cargo .."

Generally true though cars like the Fit again put up a good counterclaim.

".. and passengers, .."

Granted.

".. is generally safer in a crash, .."

Depends on the car, not the size of the car.

".. is built better, .."

How are you arriving at this speculation? What does the size of a vehicle have to do with how well it's been put together? If anything, smaller chassis will have less flex all other factors the same which should mean they'll hold up better over time.

" ..and often has options that the smaller car just doesn't have. .."

Which will raise the price of said used car. And of course, depending on what crowd you ride with you might also say that the more complicated a car is the more stuff there is go wrong.

"Oh, and it goes a LOT faster as a rule. 250HP+ for a V6 is pretty much common these days. "

Nice to have, but probably not a priority for the OP as they were concerned about fitting child seats.

"The fuel difference isn't that huge, either. .. That's $516 more in fuel a year at $3 a gallon."

Over $40 a month in operating expense will matter to most people. It's no different than getting an entry level car with a $300 payment v. a loaded version of the same car for $340. For lots of people, that extra expense is a deal-breaker.

BTW, TCO - the tool you pointed out to use - lists the difference in annual fuel cost between $800 and $1000. So it's more like $66-83 a month more.

"Something like a Malibu is quite a bit more realistic"

True enough. Each car needs to be measured on it's own merits. The CTS, though, fails the sniff test in this instance.

plekto · November 2010

Wow the TCO here is FUBAR. I didn't realize that their data was so completely screwed up.

Let's go down the list:

First, the cash price is far far too high. As in almost 5,000 higher than I can buy one for locally here in Los Angeles. This makes the used depreciation worthless. And I can't alter the amount. Fail.

Taxes and fees are fairly normal, though also too high because of the initial price being wrong. By about two whole years.

Next, the mileage is too high at 15,000 a year. And as near as I can tell, they are calculating an 18 mpg rating. (it gets a few mpg better than that even according to the government's figures. Unless they are calculating about $3.50 a gallon or something.

Maintenance and repairs is also way too high. They must be using dealer book rates. Only fools take a used car to the dealer and pay book rates and markup on parts.

The financing rates look to be wrong as well. If you could qualify for the factory financing deals, you'd need a minimum of 700-750 score these days, and that means you'd also get the lowest used financing rates as well. And of course, since the initial price is $5K too high, it's also all messed up.

And lastly, insurance is stupid. I pay about $600-$700 a year for insurance and I'm single and 40 without a spotless record no less. $1800 a year in insurance on a used vehicle is deadbeat rates.

It's just worthless. It used to be somewhat decent about 5-6 years ago, but it looks like they haven't changed the numbers and they don't let you enter new ones, either.

My bad. I didn't realize how crap Edmunds TCO was on used vehicles.(it seems fairly good on new, though)

****
http://www.money-zine.com/Calculators/Auto-Loan-Calculators/Buying-a-New-or-Used- - -Car-Calculator/

This gives a better comparison, IMO. Because the insurance costs are fairly close.

It's really nearly dead-even if you carefully work the numbers. But I'd wager that 95% of people in the U.S. will get the larger and more luxurious vehicle if the price is even close to the same. IME, they will gladly pay another 10-20% even, to have the "better" vehicle.

P.S. You;d think that this being the "mid-size sedan" forum, that it would kind of be a given that the general consensus is that this is the optimal choice for a typical family as well as it being a better choice than a small econobox.

And, yes, mid-size cars are built better. Not from a reliability standpoint, but from a mechanical and wear one. Bigger everything and stronger parts. You can plainly see this just by comparing a Corolla to a Camry. Toyota doesn't put the effort into the budget car, because, well, it's a budget car. One jsut has to drive a 10 year old Camry and a 10 year old Corolla to see the long-term difference. The difference is even more stark with something like a 2000 or so S class. Even a decade old it is fierce competition for most new vehicles. As it should be.

Of course, there is an optimum point between used cost and upkeep and luxury. A used S class isn't remotely practical. But a used domestic semi-luxury car is right in that golden zone. They hit 40-50% depreciation in the first 3-4 years and are very solid and nice cars with leather, all the goodies, and a very solid ride that ages well. I like GM a bit more than Ford, but I've owned both makes - they are both fine.(thought I have to admit, for large cars, I love the Grand Marquis - whole other discussion there - nothing beats it for a used vehicle, IMO - it wins in every category other than MPG)

note - to be fair, I've owned Chrysler, Mercedes, Volvo, Toyota, and several other makes over the years. I'm not loyal to domestics in any way other than usually getting one since they are good deals used, more often than not. (my favorite was actually a 1975 Volvo 164E - I loved that car)

jeffyscott · November 2010

You;d think that this being the "mid-size sedan" forum...

While it is not stated in the title, I believe that the intent is for this to be a discussion about new midsize sedans, not used

. However...

The TCO has CTS 3.6L V6 price at about $19,000. If you go through the used car appraisal feature, it shows "clean" at that same price with about 30,000 miles, and for "average condition it is about $2000 less. KBB has the retail value a little higher and their private party price is $18,000 for "excellent" condition, but $15,000 for fair.

The chart available at: http://usedcars.overstock.com/ shows average price for 2007 of $18,400 and for units with 20,000-30,000 miles prices range from $17-35K. those are asking prices, so I'm sure some do sell for $15K, but that is not likely the average for one in excellent, like new, condition.

It seems to me for the price of a used CTS one could also buy certain new midsize sedans so there really is no need to consider the used alternative to be a Corolla.

Compact does not have to mean econobox, but for the most part that has been all that Americans are willing to buy (in large volume) in the category. VW Jetta and Golf certainly are excellent highway cars, despite their compactness (well the Jetta was, not sure about the new economy version). I could be wrong, but I am anticipating that the new Focus, being a european design, will be a higher quality compact also.

m6user · November 2010

P.S. You;d think that this being the "mid-size sedan" forum, that it would kind of be a given that the general consensus is that this is the optimal choice for a typical family as well as it being a better choice than a small econobox

You apparently assume everyone wants what you want and sees things the same way you see them. Or at least they should. I firmly believe that most people on here like to discuss new midsize cars but certainly aren't egocentric enough to assume that is the best or only choice for families because there are many different specific desires and needs out there.

I personally don't have a problem with most of your logic but I do with the data you throw around. Little is substantiated or is conveniently at the extremes versus the average. Any source that you don't agree with seems to be completely wrong and any source you do agree with is completly accurate. You appear to give little or no thought to the whole spectrum of wants and needs, both material and psychological, of the car buying public.

Your statement kind of says it all. "You'd think" should be "I'd think". Assuming everyone thinks the same way is a serious detriment to open discussion and debate.

plekto · November 2010

My data is perfectly valid - go crunch all of the numbers yourself. A gently used vehicle a couple of years old always beats the new one economically. The 40-50% depreciation is just enormous. So much so that a midsize car that originally cost 10K or so more than the compact model now is dead-even with it. You just have to deal with the car being 2-3 years old. Given how much sturdier the more expensive larger car was originally built, most people won't even notice the difference and they'll age about the same as well.

But honestly, even VWs and Hyundais are lasting well over ten years these days. 2-3 years is really a non-issue as long as you do a bit of research to avoid a salvage or similar vehicle.

stickguy · November 2010

you do have to factor in that if you buy used, you will always end up buying more often.

thegraduate · November 2010

VWs and Hyundais are lasting well over ten years these days.

I think it's an insult to Hyundai to mention VW reliability in the same sentence, based on the data, as well as personal experience with a 2000 New Beetle 1.8T and a 2003 Jetta.

Kirstie_H · November 2010

A reporter is interested in talking with someone who thinks perhaps the competition has caught up to Toyota and Honda; someone who may be considering new brands for the first time in awhile.
If you are interested in commenting on your experience, please reply to pr@edmunds.com no later than 5pm, Thursday, November 11, 2010, and include your city and state of residence, your email address and your telephone number.

plekto · November 2010

you do have to factor in that if you buy used, you will always end up buying more often.

Not really. A better vehicle a model or two up the line generally will last 3-5 years longer in the same condition as a typical economy car. Of course, the real cost savings is if you would normally buy a bigger car. Then it gets insane.

http://www.autotrader.com/fyc/vdp.jsp?ct=p&car_id=273103195
$22K for a 5 year old car that's among the best in the world. Just insane depreciation. Even at five years old, it makes you question buying new. Well, the upkeep IS higher, but with a car like the new Regal coming in at nearly $30K, that's a lot of extra money left over for repairs.

I never buy new. And so far have never had an issue(well, other than the Neon I picked up for $650 and drove for four months... that was junk. But it *did* run for $650. Heh.

jeffyscott · November 2010

A 5 year old Mercedes does not seem like a route to saving money. I know you don't believe their figures, but the repair and maintenance costs calculated by edmunds are insane on that model...nearly $16,000 over the next 5 years and 75,000 miles.

I looked up my own similar age Mazda for comparison and the repair and maintenance cost estimate for 5 years/75K mi comes to about $3800. My wife's VW, also similar age, comes to about $4100.

Even if these figures are inflated by about 2x, that Mercedes will still cost about an extra $100 per month in repairs and maintenance over a normal car.

fushigi · November 2010

For an explanation of the data sources used by Edmunds, go to the TCO page at http://www.edmunds.com/apps/cto/CTOintroController and click About TCO. Some notes:
- Financing assumes good credit, 60 month term, and 10% down.
- Insurance data is from major insurers.
- Fuel prices uses the revised EPA numbers, assumes 45%/55% highway/city driving, and uses your states moving average prices.
- Maintenance uses manufacturer intervals for scheduled and adds unscheduled items (battery, brakes, headlamps, hoses, exhaust system parts, taillight/turn signal bulbs, tires and wiper blades/inserts). Tire prices are from Tire Rack.
- Repairs are interesting in that Edmunds is using the cost of an extended warranty minus assumed overhead & profit for the warranty provider. This should provide for a nationalized average of repair costs incurred for the make/model.

Edmunds assumes 15K miles/year. That's too high for my wife's car but about right for mine.

What's not stated for repairs & maintenance is whether the service is done professionally or by the owner. My assumption is that all services are performed by professionals (dealer, chain, or independent shop) using OEM parts. DIYers can shop brands & sales and get labor costs down to a case of beer for your friends.

Also not mentioned are added cost items: Nav map updates and/or traffic subscriptions if not free, On* fees, satellite radio service costs.

Maybe a future version of TCO will allow you to accept the assumptions or plug in data more specific to your situation (larger down payment, "super preferred" v. average insurance, etc.).

I'm tracking expenses on my vehicle and in the last 11 months it has cost almost $15K. Almost $12K of that has been down payment (no trade) and regular payments, $1400 in gas, and almost $1300 in insurance. One oil change/tire rotation has been the only repair/maintenance item so far. The rest has been extras like the Sirius subscription, WeatherTech liners, and car washes. Averages come out to $1.42/mile and $43.28/day, both of which are declining as time & miles accrue.

Costs seem high today but over the past 17 years I've never kept a car for less than 6 years & 100K miles. I fully anticipate the cost/mile to be around or even under the federal guideline (currently 50 cents/mile) by the time I replace it.

And BTW, that fed cost per mile makes things interesting. Of course it's an average so it doesn't reflect individual situations, but as a signpost it's good for thinking about things. Would you drive a mile out of your way (and a mile back) to save 5 cents a gallon on gas? You probably shouldn't unless you're buying more than 20 gallons.

jeffyscott · November 2010

"What's not stated for repairs & maintenance is whether the service is done professionally or by the owner."

I would not think that needs to be stated. Of course, they are basing costs on paying professionals to do the work.

plekto · November 2010

About the Mercedes, Basic logic should tell you that something is just plain off, since it's the last year of the previous generation, which was supposedly worlds more reliable than the previous ones. The 2007+ models are literally 15-20K more - a bad deal for sure, until the next generation comes out in 2013-2014.

But we can't really know what Edmunds is basing that on, since I get this:
http://www.edmunds.com/used/2006/mercedesbenz/sclass/100521806/reliability.html

Looks like green check-marks on everything for 2006. So.. $16K in repairs and upkeep is... exactly where does this come from? Every significant recall and warranty trouble spot affected models in the early years (mostly 2000-2003) but the last two years are rock solid, as you'd expect.

Looking at over a dozen different used vehicles, I can't figure the following pattern, though:

$1,528 $689 $395 $1,218 $1,238 $5,068
Crazy Normal Normal High High

This is upkeep(no repairs, even) on a 2006 Civic. What in the WORLD costs $1500 the first year you get the used vehicle that the dealership didn't take care of when you bought it? Are they replacing literally every item from bulbs and struts and tires and all the rest that possibly exist on the car? These things generally are fixed before it goes to market and don't wear out immediately, either.

Year 4's spike, though, is probably a new set of tires. Despite the fact that I can get tires for a Civic for $70 each and the ones that the dealer put on it originally to sell it are good for 60-80K or more these days - it shouldn't need tires at all during 5 years of normal driving. No dealer that I know of sells a 5 year old car with the original worn-out balding tires.

Year 5 for all used vehicles I checked I can't figure out. Again, this is a total mystery. $1200 in upkeep on a Civic without Nav or a sunroof(which would be repairs anyways). What does this actually include? A whole new interior? Because I didn't spend that much in upkeep a year on my 23 year old 4x4. After ten years, it's either a repair or it's just bulbs and tires and brakes and so on.

I really do wish Edmunds would come clean about the raw data, though, since their TCO figures are almost double what real-world costs run.

jeffyscott · November 2010

I don't think their figures are far off of reality. I also doubt that they arrange their figures to fit your idea that year 1 means the year you buy the car from a dealer who fixed everything.

I did make an error on the two comparisons I gave, my car and my wife's car have total estimated repair and maintenance costs of about $7500 and $7800 (still 1/2 of the MB, though). That is about 10 cents per mile. As one who pays professionals to do the work on my cars, but try to get deals and avoid over-doing maintenance, an older car can certainly cost somewhere around that. Over the last 10 years or so, older cars we have had have each run about 6-13 cents per mile for all repairs and maintenance.

plekto · November 2010

Still, that doesn't explain this:
2006 S430 first year:
$2560 maintenance + $1517 repairs.

What exactly costs $2560 that isn't repairs on a five year old car that you just bought? Tires for it cost $120 each or so, so it can't be just that. It can't be the transmission, either, and that's only about $1800-$1900 to fix, being that it's the last of the older style automatics before the new and more problematic models came out. And it's not AWD, either, for those figures. (both of which would be repairs, anyways)

$2560... in oil changes, batteries, bulbs, and so on... And, yes, it IS considered normal according to Edmunds to be buying this from a dealer instead of a private party.(all of their prices are dealer prices for the car and the repairs, after all) So what exactly goes wrong in year 5 on a used car that costs that much?

I just don't believe it. Not for a second. Something isn't right with their figures.

jeffyscott · November 2010

"And, yes, it IS considered normal according to Edmunds to be buying this from a dealer..."

You misunderstood my comment, what I meant was they probably have a figure for the maintenance and repair costs for a car in it's 5th year and that is what is used in all cases, that they do not change based on an assumption that the car is newly purchased. For example if you looked at a 2008 model of that same car, I am guessing the $2560 would show up in year 3 instead of year 1.

But I do agree that it would be nice to be able to see the details, like an itemized list of the expected maintenance items.

mickeyrom · November 2010

I think a lot depends on how the car is used and maintained.I have a 2006.5 Optima with approx 43,000 miles on it and have had 0 dollars spent on repairs,either paid by me or KIA.It is 95% driven on the highways and I use Mobil1 oil,change the tranny fluid in around two years and that is about it.

plekto · November 2010

And that would make more sense, really. Brakes, tires, and oil changes. should add up to about $50 a month, and then repairs. You wouldn't expect a 3-5 year old car with under 40K on it to need much of anything major for a while.

I think Edmunds is assuming a far worse reliability index for all vehicles(I noticed that percentage-wise, almost all vehicles seems to following the same underlying pattern in their calculations) than what we've actually been seeing. When I said that even Hyundai and VW are reliable these days, it wasn't a slam against either. It's just that the old editors and management's assumptions(mostly by people in their 40s and 50s) have still not changed despite vehicle quality being much better than it has ever been. They think that brands like that are still mostly junk, and the same attitude is still found about Domestics with many people.

Simply put, cars since 2006 - 2007 have been far more reliable than ever before. Almost to the point where brand doesn't make much difference. (compare this to 1970 where many cars were worn out at 70-80K) You can hop in any one of a dozen manufacturer's cars and run it ragged for a decade and not spend a lot on it. Sure there are problem spots like Chrysler, which still can't seem to make a decent transmission, and stuff like Suzuki which should just go back to making only motorcycles, but they are easy to avoid.

It just doesn't cost that much to run 3-5 year old cars these days and every other site's data that I could find seems to be showing roughly half the upkeep that Edmunds TCO is showing. A breakdown of exact items would be nice.

Sandman6472 · November 2010

This car has been extremely reliable since I bought it in June of '06. Don't drive much now that I'm out on sick leave & just hit 29.9k on Friday. I do the oil changes with dino juice when the oil monitor gets to 15%. Have done the front brakes & swapped out the brake fluid within the last 6 months. Had to replace the tires, but that was my error. Besides that...nothing else done & it still rides tight like new. Was thinking of swapping out of it into a more spinal friendly ride due to some severe spinal issues I've got & wish continue yo get worse. Am now thinking of a CPO RX330, as I could just slide right over to get into it & for the higher seating position.

But trading or private selling for a '05 or '06 RX would require more additional $ from me & with the increased petrol costs, maintenance & insurance costs, just doesn't seem prudent at this juncture. The Civic was bought with cash & runs like new...it's also cheap to keep! Sure, would really love the leather & the luxury that a Lexus would provide, but financially, not smart. And any pre-owned would be a bit miled up, possibly in the 30k to 40k region...a gamble there. Repairs could be done at a Toyota service store to save some $ also. And I love the '05 to '07 RX models so much. But with the Civic, I know the history which is a big + to me.

So am torn between what's practical & what would be super fun as I coast into full retirement. The wife thinks I'm nuts, but a car is an appliance to her & she'll never get the "fun/cool factor" that such a car would give to me...it would be way cool & put a big grin on my face forever! So here I sit on the fence & wait until the fun side kicks butt on the practical side. But deep down...I WANT AN RX!!!!!

The Sandman :sick: :shades:

backy · November 2010

FWIW, the Civic is a sub-compact per EPA, albeit a compact by outside dimensions. The RX is an SUV.

Any mid-sized family sedans (look to the right) of the current or soon-to-be crop that you like? Maybe you like one not pictured here, e.g. Legacy or Kizashi. I'm wondering whether VW will mess up their Passat replacement, like they did the new Jetta.

acdii · November 2010

It also depends on how many miles a year one puts on a car. If I bought used, the car would not last the life of the loan. My Fusion is 13 months old, and has 26K on it already, the Flex I got in February has 9k on it. Previously I bought used, but they started to cost me more than buying new since they wore out before being paid off, which meant rolling the loans. I finally just parked one, paid it off, then got a new one and through diligent financing, and good bargaining, was able to keep ahead of the miles. It is not an easy thing to do, and there are a lot of cars out there that make it near impossible to do this with due to bad depreciation. However, it is looking like the Fusion is going to have higher residual value than the Camry did, which makes me happy if I need to dump it, but we like the Fusion a lot, unlike the Toyotas we had, so we may be hanging onto this one for a long time.

tallman1 · November 2010

I went to the Seattle Auto Show this weekend. I'm not in the market right now but it did give me a chance to sit in most of the sedans I'd ever consider (and some I wouldn't).

The biggest surprise to me was the lack of headroom in the Fusion. They only had two models... both with sunroofs. I realize that you lose headroom when a sunroof is involved but it was pretty bad compared with other models. I think the Altima was the only sedan there w/out a sunroof.... Nissan didn't go to a lot of trouble in their booth.

OTOH, the Legacy has really improved their headroom. The last time I was in one was in the 90s. Simply horrible then. (Even the older Outbacks were bad but are great now.)

The nice thing was that most models are getting closer and closer in fit/finish.

And what's with putting the e-brake back on the floor with a pedal that covers the foot rest on the left?? I saw that on two models but can't remember which now. :sick:

stickguy · November 2010

were the seats adjustable? Drives me nuts at the car show when they have the power off, and the seat is adjusted so that only a munchkin would fit behind the wheel.

so maybe the seat was not all the way down?

I have driven a Fusion with a roof, and had plenty of room. And I have a long torso, and often have problems with hitting my head!

tallman1 · November 2010

Yes, I was able to adjust the seats on the Fusions. They were power and I was able to lower them all the way down. Frankly, I was surprised how they compared with other sedans.

Of course, some cars did indeed have the batteries disconnected so that the power seats couldn't be adjusted. I hate that too but I understand the need to do that. I suppose some exhibitors had fully charged batteries in the beginning but not at the end of the show.

backy · November 2010

At some shows, the exhibitors run power to the cars so buyers can check out the seats and other accessories. I've noticed most automakers don't do that at my local auto show (Twin Cities). A few do, and I appreciate it. Or at least they have a base model with a manual seat available to try out. Otherwise the "sit test" opportunity at the auto show is wasted.

explorerx4 · November 2010

I am over 6 foot and drive Fusion with a moon roof. It has enough headroom for me, but it may depend on where you position the seat.

tallman1 · November 2010

I'm 6'4" and hit my head on the side of the roof (roof liner). As most know, it isn't the glass that is in the way, it is the lower roof that accommodates the sliding sunroof. I usually fit in non-sunroof cars with no problem.

Thank goodness most power seats allow you to raise/lower them.

Kirstie_H · November 2010

A reporter is interested in talking with owners of the Hyundai Sonata or Honda Accord
who are also parents. If you are interested in commenting on your experience, please reply to pr@edmunds.com no later than Saturday, November 20, 2010 and include your city and state of residence, the model year of your vehicle and the age of your child/ren.

Midsize Sedans 2.0

Comments

Helpful Tools

Most popular vehicles