Edmunds dealer partner, Bayway Leasing, is now offering transparent lease deals via these forums. Click here to see the latest vehicles!
Popular New Cars
Popular Used Sedans
Popular Used SUVs
Popular Used Pickup Trucks
Popular Used Hatchbacks
Popular Used Minivans
Popular Used Coupes
Popular Used Wagons
Comments
And of those 'good modern' 4 bangers let's say the Honda, Toyota and Nissan engines every one of them is pulling something close to 20lbs./HP which starts to become a problem in this regard as these cars get larger and heavier. The better V6s will only cost you about 3-4 mpg (or $10.00/month) assumming 27 vs. 30 mpg, 12k/year, and $3/gallon. 10 bucks a small price to pay IMO - it is possible these days to have our cake and eat it too. I'll obviously opt for the securities offered by the 250hp (or more) - you are the one that can be judgmental and tell me that 'I don't need it'.
OK - $10K more then. I can get a 328 for $36K with the Premium Pac and the Sport Pac. The 335 is at least $44K with those Pacs, but try to find one with JUST those Pacs. You can't. The ones I've seen at 2 dealers were all loaded.
gets way less MPGs (who cares tho! - its a 335!) probably 34 highway after being broken in, my 330 got 34 mpg at 65
Huh? At 65? What? A 330 ain't a turbo and it won't get 34 mpgs, unless you're going downhill the whole way.
High HP is one of the things you use the least in 95% of your drives. 230 in a RWD setup is perfect. disagree, my turbo 4 gets floored quite a bit when merging
I thought you had a 330? You got the only one coming out of the factory with a turbo 4 then. You have to floor turbos to get 'em up and out. I don't want that kind of wildness going on every time I step on the gas.
The 335 is sweet, but impractical.
Well I have seen Accords and the like with trailer hitches welded to them. Probably just for bike racks and such but one never knows!!! :surprise:
If you are crazy enough to tow with an Accord, or the like, then you better have the V6 IMO.
If you are crazy enough to tow with an Accord, or the like, then you better have the V6 IMO.
My '93 actually has a hitch bike rack on it right now. It brought my dining room set home in a 5x8 U-haul trailer with no problems at all, but it doesn't tow nearly as well as the much much newer Subie that is also a 4 cylinder.
Ouch! :P
"With the V6 you can wait until you get halfway down the ramp, and pick a spot to blend into the traffic without anyone having to slow down for you.
Don't get me wrong. I have nothing against 4 cylinder Accords. My 92 Accord (140hp) was plenty fast enough for me for 12 years. It's just so much easier, and takes less advanced planning, with the 6 cylinder's highway acceleration."
Your V6 is an automatic, right? So we are talking just under a one second difference from 0-60 MPH, say 7.5 seconds for an I4 manual versus 6.6 for a V6 automatic. I could get in the same gap you could as long as my response is within one second quicker than you. Not that much advanced planning.
Under one second is not much time, but what are we talking in distance? From a dead stop to 60 MPH, your car would be 79 feet ahead of mine. (Once both vehicles are traveling at a steady 60 MPH, a 0.9 second difference in time equates to 79 feet, right?).
Noticeable, sure, but not as much of a difference as some here are making it seem. Certainly not half of an on ramp, and definitely not some kind of safety concern.
Just one car back.
Elroy and I on an onramp... if he was able to get right in front of a semi, I'd just have to pull right behind it. No big deal.
This was proven for me when I was shopping for cars, in the insurance quotes I received. I looked at both the regular and the MazdaSpeed Mazda6. As far as insurance is concerned, replacement parts and crashworthiness should have been about the same, right? However, the faster car (the MazdaSpeed) would have been much more to insure (overall, "less safe" in the eyes of the insurance company).
Ummm how about $6k more according to the BMW website? Base price of 328 vs 335.
"Huh? At 65? What? A 330 ain't a turbo and it won't get 34 mpgs, unless you're going downhill the whole way."
So I have to ask, are you saying I'm lying? The 330 has better gas mileage than some of the 4 bangers.
"I thought you had a 330?"
I have and had a number of cars, so what?
"The 335 is sweet, but impractical."
Understood, it is impractical for you.
Any excuse will do for criminally setup auto insurance business.
This is where I think we get into assuming the mentality of the driver. Assuming the Speed driver would be a greater risk would be wrong, IMO. That doesn't mean insurance companies don't do it, I would, however disagree with that. If both cars are "midsize sedans" and the MSRP is the same, the insurance cost should be the same also.
I don't think they do. Most insurance companies determine their rates statisticly. if 3 percent of accords sold are involved in an accident, and 4 percent of mazda speed 6's sold are involved in accidents, the speed 6 will get a higher rate. that's why you pay more depending on where you live, age, sex, record, and type of car.
its all bassed on statistics.
In addition to all the driver demographics, vehicle demographics are taken into consideration. (At least they are in CT where I am an insurance agent.)
Things like frequency of involvement in claims (accidents or theft/vandalism), damagability (the cost of vehicle repairs for standardized damage tests), and value of vehicle are factored into the rate. In CT, and I think most or all of the country, performance car ratings (high perf, intermediate perf or sport car) were dropped several years ago in favor of a more accurate measure of risk based upon actual make/model loss experience. (This evolution was probably helped when Caddy brought out the Northstar. Suddenly, Grandma was driving a "high performance" car and after time the statistics showed that Granny driving her Caddy had a better record than many others cars.)
The words "sport" or "speed" have nothing to do with it. A Grand Cherokee Loredo Sport does not cost more to insure than a Grand Cherokee Limited. They're not in the class being discussed, they were just the first two examples that came to mind of the "same" vehicle with different sub-names not being rated differently due to a name.
Another example was the 1984 Chrysler Laser and its Dodge counter part. They were the exact same car, except for the name. After a year or so on the market, the Chrysler became less expensive to insure than the Dodge. The Dodge didn't become more expensive, the Chrysler became less expensive. Why? Try loss experience and what type of driver was attracted to each car.
Another myth is that manual shift cars cost more to insure than cars with A/T. If anything, the manual shift MIGHT cost less to insure due to the car (generally) having a lower MSRP than the car with A/T.
The statistics are based on hundreds of thousands or millions of cars over a period of time.
Sounds a lot more logical and accurate to me.
http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do/News/articleId=121856
I think this is a great move for Chrysler to catch the attention of buyers, similar to what Hyundai did eight years ago with its 10 year/100k warranty. But Chrysler needs to follow up just as Hyundai did, by greatly improving their products--specifically the Sebring and Avenger--as soon as possible.
If anyone has any questions about my experiences, feel free to ask me.
Artour
The warranty is not transferable......Most people don't drive their vehicles for more than a few years. At least not the people I know.....maybe 3-4 years max and then they get new cars.
The warranty doesn't help subsequent owners and its pretty likely the 3 year/36,000 mile warranty already expired. Also, I don't think the warranty will greatly persuade people to go out and buy a chrysler.
Given 'Detroit's' generally dire financial straits, I think buyers of those particular brands are really more likely to chance a worthless warranty because the company no longer exists, then they are to actually need to use that warranty in the first place.
I think the diesel drivetrains already come with some type of extended warranty, and since they are used for some very high mile applications (2-300k/yr) that might be too much to ask.
I think its cool that they would be willing to support a single owner for a 150-200k lifetime. If the warranty covers the transmission and basic engine mechanicals (like the oil pump, head gasket, etc, but not the water pump), I think that would make me feel more comfortable with a vehicle.
I also think since most people lease the car anyway, the exposure for Chrysler is minimal, and they might actually be making a reliable product :P
I bet if Honda or Toyota came out with a similar warranty it would be praised as evidence of superior quality. Neither position is accurate as warranty length has nothing to do with quality - it's just an insurance policy with a defined cost that has to be built into the product. Higher quality means less warranty cost but you can put a 10 yr warranty on anything if you have enough profit to pay for the repairs.
One little problem I see with this warranty program: when Hyundai did it eight years ago, they had a big problem with lack of confidence in the quality of their vehicles. A long warranty can help alleviate that concern. I don't think Chrysler's big problem is vehicle reliability, at least not powertrain reliability. I think it's that they need more competitive car designs, especially mid-sized cars (and small cars too). A long warranty won't help solve that problem, but maybe it will help them stay in the game better until they can improve their cars.
Most people in both our families are the same way and I expect our kids will be so also, so for us it would be a factor. OTOH, from the mfr's perspective, if all you attract are the buyers who come in once every 12 years (like me) you will only sell them 1/4 as many cars as you would to the same number of people who trade every 3 years. :surprise:
I would have liked to have had a warranty like this on my windstar to cover all the gaskets in their sieve (3.8L engine). And actually, now that I think of it, it was seals and gaskets that led to the demise of it's predecessor...a Plymouth minivan.
I think this would have caused me to give additional consideration to Chyrsler products, but pretty sure even after that I would not have chosen the Sebring.
even ford themselves said it would be the only profitable quarter this year, and they don't expect sustained profitablilty till 2009
This article appeared in the Detroit News the morning of the 26th. They should have waited to publish their guesses.
Buick LaCrosse 2
Chevy Malibu 3
Chrysler Sebring 2
Dodge Avenger 2.5
Ford Fusion 3
Honda Accord 3.5
Hyundai Sonata 3
Kia Optima 3.5
Mazda 6 2.5
Mercury Milan 3
Mitsubishi Galant 2.5
Nissan Altima 3
Pontiac G6 2.5
Saturn Aura 3
Suburu Impreza 3
Toyota Camry 3.5
Volkswagen Jetta 3.5
Hogwash, IMO - if you find Toyota or Honda offering these ridiculous warranties then it is evidence of declining market share or (even worse) declining reputation. Camcords have the warranties that they have precisely and only because that is all that is needed to sell them - some of the cars in this group don't get a second look without it - and it would be foolish (and bad business) for Toyota/Honda (and Nissan) to do such a thing when all three cars sell just fine and magically blow away the lesser competition in long term reliability studies anyway. In short, these extended warranties are more likely evidence of suspect quality (and reputation) not superior.
The Camcords, specifically, have set the standard in this class for about 25 years now, and there is no evidence at this point that any of this has changed other than the competition seems, over a much shorter term, to be getting a bit better. It's about time - it is not like those other manufacturers didn't have plenty of time to see how it's done...
These warranties are offered for several marketing type reasons, but 'superior quality' is NOT one of them. 'Superior quality' is something that is expected from models from particular mfgrs., and not something that any warranty of any length is ever going to imply/evidence/guarantee (or whatever), for 10 years or 10 minutes!
From your statement you are trying to tell me that the Sebring, in this case, must be the best built car available, if we are to assume that this model is covered by this Chrysler warranty? Gimme a break!
oh yeah, more promises coming from Dearborn. Both the Fusion and Five Hundred were touted to be class competitive and defining 'clean sheet' new products, neither of which are or were. How about some results - the promises are getting very, very, very, old.
I believe what the captain meant to say was:
oh yeah, more promises coming from Dearborn. Both the Fusion and Five Hundred were touted to be class competitive and defining 'clean sheet' new productsINSERT PERSONAL OPINION HERE
I think there is a slight mix up between class competitive and class leading. Of course, I don't think an over powered weak kneed lounge chair is class leading either, and that seemed to drive his purchase decision.
Please re-read what I posted. I guess you stopped after the first sentence.
I bet if Honda or Toyota came out with a similar warranty it would be praised as evidence of superior quality. Neither position is accurate as warranty length has nothing to do with quality - it's just an insurance policy with a defined cost that has to be built into the product. Higher quality means less warranty cost but you can put a 10 yr warranty on anything if you have enough profit to pay for the repairs.
My point was the Camcord lovers have such a double standard on things like this that it's almost laughable.
The Fusion and the Five Hundred ARE competitive - not class leading but certainly competitive. The new Taurus just might be class leading.
There are 2 things different at Ford - Fields and Mullaly - and they are making FUNDAMENTAL changes to how Ford designs and builds cars (finally) that previous CEOs either didn't know how or didn't have the guts to do. The 09 models due out next year will be the first real sign of the product design turnaround under Fields. It will take 2 or 3 more years to fully realize the global platform strategy that Mullaly is mandating now.
I agree 100%. I had a 500 for a week, it had a lot of room. Amenities were ok. Acceleration was adequate, handline was annoying and it sucked gas like no tomorrow. Would I buy one over an Accord? I don't know, this car defintely fits the value proposition, pay less, get less.
I for one actually like the new Optima. From what I have seen and read, it is a big step up for that manufacturer.
The Avalon, BTW, which I guess is what you diss, is anything but 'weak kneed' in the 'Touring' trim which I own, has further won outright every comparo it has ever been a part of (TMK), has the lowest COO in its class, the best power (except for the V8s, of course), the best FE, and is the highest rated sedan CR has ever tested (tied with an Acura). If you are willing to tradeoff some of smooth and quiet ride for anything not so 'soft' that's one thing but that, my friend, is exactly what 'class leading' is all about!
Yes, some of them would.
cough andres3 cough, cough
:P
glad you've had apparently good luck with your Hyundais, but it would be the Korean mfgrs. that 'need' that warranty the most, IMO, not so much for what they are producing now but in payment for past sins. No car should have any sort of real problems in its first 100k, the warranties 'ridiculous' (maybe a bad choice of words) in that a well designed and built car shouldn't ever darken the dealer's doorstep until well after that mileage has come and gone. In fact, I would bet that the 7 years (for those that don't drive that much, is a tougher number (from Hyundai's perspective) than the 100k. Tell me that your Hyundai has been trouble free for several years and maybe 250k miles, that's indicative of something really good as it is for any car these days.
How about the transmission "extension warranty" to 100K miles for Hondas. How about the recalls to put in an oiling tube they "forgot" in engineering?
How about the current transmission/powertrain problems with flare and hesitations in Camry (ES/Avalon), which is giving Camry a real problem in image. If you are open-minded I can link to discussions here on Edmunds where people are upset about not having the "powertrain warranty" applied even during those short full warranty periods. How about the recent sludge problem with Toyotas? They extended the warranty to cover some--at least to make it look good in the media...
Regression to the mean is occurring.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,