Edmunds Members - Cars and Conversations (Archived)

imidazol97 · September 2015

verdugo said:
I have a sales, well, lease story. We went to the Chevrolet dealership to try to lease the new Volt. .

Congratulations on the new car.

roadburner · September 2015

Yes, congrats!

roadburner · September 2015

Out of town today, so I'm checking out the local BMW and Ford dealers. Maybe Subaru and Dodge as well/
Probably not buying anything- but you never know.
At least I might have some good stories...

graphicguy · September 2015

So, just filed with the Ohio Attorney General office regarding my Cadillac. Called them. Nice folks and given that they are a government agency, I was kind of surprised how concerned they were. They say that some of the issues sounds like a safety concern. So, they are looking into filing with the NHTSB. In addition, they're going to contact Cadillac with my buy back request.

Maybe Cadillac can disregard a letter from a lawyer or the Better Business Bureau. Let's see what their response is to the State of Ohio!

verdugo · September 2015

oldfarmer50 said:

Congrats. Sounds like you got a good deal. I almost feel sorry for car sales people, they don't stand a chance against Edmunds posters.

That special paint, was it Ruby Red Metallic? That cost $400 extra on my Ford.

Thanks. The paint color was Bronze Fire (metallic brown.)

We ended up going with Magnetic (metallic grey)

houdini1 · September 2015

There is a great Shell Oil/Ferrari commercial on youtube. I would post it if I knew how. Such beautiful music.

verdugo · September 2015

bwia said:
@verdugo, was it that easy to ~~buy~~ lease that Fusion? You made it seem as routine as buying a loaf of bread. Congrats.

Thank you all for your kind comments.

Yes, it was that easy. Buying or leasing a car is really easy in two cases:

1) You don't do your homework and take whatever overpriced deal they initially offer
2) You do your homework and you quickly make a beneficial deal for both parties

Of course, there was no trade in, which always simplifies things.

verdugo · September 2015

graphicguy said:
So, just filed with the Ohio Attorney General office regarding my Cadillac. Called them. Nice folks and given that they are a government agency, I was kind of surprised how concerned they were. They say that some of the issues sounds like a safety concern. So, they are looking into filing with the NHTSB. In addition, they're going to contact Cadillac with my buy back request.

Maybe Cadillac can disregard a letter from a lawyer or the Better Business Bureau. Let's see what their response is to the State of Ohio!

I can't wait for the next chapter in this saga.

driver100 · September 2015

graphicguy said:
So, just filed with the Ohio Attorney General office regarding my Cadillac. Called them. Nice folks and given that they are a government agency, I was kind of surprised how concerned they were. They say that some of the issues sounds like a safety concern. So, they are looking into filing with the NHTSB. In addition, they're going to contact Cadillac with my buy back request.

Maybe Cadillac can disregard a letter from a lawyer or the Better Business Bureau. Let's see what their response is to the State of Ohio!

Perfect! Love it.....good luck!

oldfarmer50 · September 2015

roadburner said:
Out of town today, so I'm checking out the local BMW and Ford dealers. Maybe Subaru and Dodge as well/
Probably not buying anything- but you never know.
At least I might have some good stories...

RR, if you do get a Mustang get the summer tires. These p-Zero Nero all-seasons on mine are just dreadful. If I can scrape up the dough I'll replace them. I put up with sub standard rubber on the last car for years not knowing what a difference tires can make in handling.

abacomike · September 2015

oldfarmer50 said:

Out of town today, so I'm checking out the local BMW and Ford dealers. Maybe Subaru and Dodge as well/ Probably not buying anything- but you never know. At least I might have some good stories...
RR, if you do get a Mustang get the summer tires. These p-Zero Nero all-seasons on mine are just dreadful. If I can scrape up the dough I'll replace them. I put up with sub standard rubber on the last car for years not knowing what a difference tires can make in handling.

That's why I got the 19" optional wheels with summer performance tires. They wear very quickly, but the handling is outstanding compared to the standard all-season tires.

It is quite possible I will have to replace the front tires in 4-6 months. The rears are wearing much better - have twice the tread depth left on the tears compared to the fronts.

PF_Flyer · September 2015

stever said:

roadburner said:
I am also a Street Survival coach and our data indicates the training has a positive effect.
The best learning experience I've found is to teach. We should have kids like your son teaching other kids with the requirement that they pass it on (theory being that having to turn around and teach other kids will be the real learning experience). And that could encourage a bunch of new drivers to get off their phones and learn to drive.

Learning on manual trannys (which they both still drive and prefer) kept all of my daughter's appendages busy, so phone use while driving has never been an issue with them.

They're 4 years apart in age, and it was interesting that they were the ones that other parent trusted their kids to ride with.

bwia · September 2015

I saw the Transporter Refueled last night. No Jason Statham but...

It features an Audi S8 instead of the A8 used in the previous films of the Transporter franchise. Impressive automobile with all the latest gadgets, including autonomous driving. One big faux pas though, Frank, the lead actor was using a run-of-the-mill cell phone rather than a built-in integrated phone with Bluetooth. Don't tell me Bluetooth is an option.

In a couple scenes the car was doing over 220 kpm. Sounds pretty fast but that is only 136 mph which is achievable even in a Hyundai Sonata. (Remember the Sonata in a police chase doing 147+)

The movie is pretty ordinary but if you enjoy watching action movies and fast cars and aggressive driving sequences then you will love the Transporter Refueled on an Imax screen.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eeoKyTHn5Kg

Mr_Shiftright · September 2015

I can do that link for you.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iItzJc-NHI4

houdini1 said:
There is a great Shell Oil/Ferrari commercial on youtube. I would post it if I knew how. Such beautiful music.

houdini1 · September 2015

Thanks shifty. That's it.

andres3 · September 2015

snakeweasel said:

andres3 said:

What is the second bird? The problem with the way you did it was that you relied on someone elses summary all the while not summarizing it yourself. This tells me you didn't read the study and went with whatever supported your position not knowing if the clearly represented the study.

So you can't argue the merits of the argument so you go on the personal attack. Nothing I cited was false or made up, and as far as misrepresenting, well lets just look at what you wrote.

A few issues with the Solomon study. First we are discussing absolute speeds and the Solomon study deals with relative speeds and there is a difference. The solomon curve is meaningless when discussing the dangers, or lack thereof, of going faster as it only deals with relative speed. Second there have been other studies such as from the Road Accident Research Unit, Adelaide University that showed that traffic going slower had a slower rate in increase in accidents than faster moving traffic at the same difference is speed.

Also note that the Triangle Research Group did a study of accidents and found the same results as Solomon. However they distinguished between slower moving vehicles and vehicles that were either stopped or slowing to make a turn. When they removed those turning cars from the equation they found that the slower speed traffic had a much lower rate of accidents than that of the faster moving traffic. In short removing turning traffic eliminates Solomons curve.

Nope, you haven't. All you are doing is trying to justify your speeding.
I didn't rely on anyone else's summary, but the summary is the correct interpretation of the study; so my summary would be the same as I cited. I think you are the one that has been exposed for not having read a study in which you cited misinformation. I've read the studies, and it is you who has been shown to have a repeated pattern of ignoring real data or citing biased studies backed by insurance companies that also have been shown to ignore real data as well. Are you sure your not currently working for big insurance? You seem to follow the same pattern as they do.

Regarding relative speeds; that's all we have in the real world. The real world doesn't have a sample of one vehicle driving on it, so it doesn't make sense to talk about absolute speeds in real world scenarios. Now if you have data showing that a majority of accidents don't involve other vehicles (and even if another vehicle wasn't hit it doesn't mean they were not involved in influencing the driver's actions and maneuvers), then I'll pay more attention to this laboratory scenario of absolute speed.

You cite Adelaide University but their study says "In July 2003, the speed limit on approximately 1,100 km of rural arterial roads in South Australia was reduced from 110 km/h to 100 km/h. A previous CASR study found that the speed limit change was associated with a 1.9 km/h reduction in average speed."

If you have to resort to claiming a 1.9 km/h reduction in average speeds traveled is the reason for lower rates of accidents then I think you are grasping for straws. Do they factor in their accident rates for vehicle miles traveled? I've seen where the biased 55 stay alive proponents conveniently ignored that raising speed limits from 55 to 65 and up made our roadways SAFER by factoring vehicle miles traveled. Of course, if your goal is to say roads got more dangerous when 55 was repealed, it helps to ignore that vehicle miles traveled went way up at the same time speed limits did initially. Accidents and fatalities sure did go up absolutely, but it was because more population drove more miles, not because people sped up when 55 was abolished. Based on numerous other studies, I think you are lucky to get as much as a 1.9 km/h reduction with a 10 km/h reduction in the speed limit. And Australia??? Hmm... I could cite that Germany's high speed Autobahns make our low speed highways look like blood baths in comparison; when your arguing the opposite should happen. I think we should stick to US roads to reduce variables here.

Also, Adelaide study is flawed because of failing on the following:
1) Assuming certain low speed limits are "magical" safe numbers.
2) “Fails to highlight that outcomes only apply to free travelling speed crashes (about 28% of serious crashes)”.
3) “Fails to recognize that a high BAC applies to the whole trip whereas free travel speed applies to only part”.
4) Fails to recognize speeds above or below site-specific mean speeds are dangerous and result in crashes.

Lastly, I think Solomon still applies because there are no "turns" on our freeways. Highways don't always have turns available. So the Triangle Research Group (hard to find any information on them) has done nothing to disprove Solomon in relation to roads that have no turns; such as Interstate Freeways.

explorerx4 · September 2015

Trailer for that movie is kind of dumb. Smoke only coming off the rear tires on an Audi?

ab348 · September 2015

explorerx4 said:
Trailer for that movie is kind of dumb. Smoke only coming off the rear tires on an Audi?

I would suggest the entire movie is kind of dumb from what I have seen of it in commercials. If I never again see some action hero flying sideways feet-first through the air to crash through the window of a moving car, it will be too soon.

driver100 · September 2015

ab348 said:

explorerx4 said:
Trailer for that movie is kind of dumb. Smoke only coming off the rear tires on an Audi?
I would suggest the entire movie is kind of dumb from what I have seen of it in commercials. If I never again see some action hero flying sideways feet-first through the air to crash through the window of a moving car, it will be too soon.

If you like real to life see A Walk in the Woods with Robert Redford and Nick Nolte. It is a real life like story about some old retired dudes kind of like most of us, who go on a 2100 mile trip through the Appalachian Mountains. Great dialogue, funny, and you can identify with it. Almost everyone in the theatre was over 50 years old, and many people applauded at the end. Magnificent scenery too.

https://youtu.be/cOF2LIAp9bw

houdini1 · September 2015

driver100 said:

ab348 said:

explorerx4 said:
Trailer for that movie is kind of dumb. Smoke only coming off the rear tires on an Audi?
I would suggest the entire movie is kind of dumb from what I have seen of it in commercials. If I never again see some action hero flying sideways feet-first through the air to crash through the window of a moving car, it will be too soon.
If you like real to life see A Walk in the Woods with Robert Redford and Nick Nolte. It is a real life like story about some old retired dudes kind of like most of us, who go on a 2100 mile trip through the Appalachian Mountains. Great dialogue, funny, and you can identify with it. Almost everyone in the theatre was over 50 years old, and many people applauded at the end. Magnificent scenery too.

https://youtu.be/cOF2LIAp9bw

My wife and I went to see "A Walk In The Woods", last week and found it to be very enjoyable.

andres3 · September 2015

snakeweasel said:

andres3 said:

What is the second bird? The problem with the way you did it was that you relied on someone elses summary all the while not summarizing it yourself. This tells me you didn't read the study and went with whatever supported your position not knowing if the clearly represented the study.

So you can't argue the merits of the argument so you go on the personal attack. Nothing I cited was false or made up, and as far as misrepresenting, well lets just look at what you wrote.

A few issues with the Solomon study. First we are discussing absolute speeds and the Solomon study deals with relative speeds and there is a difference. The solomon curve is meaningless when discussing the dangers, or lack thereof, of going faster as it only deals with relative speed. Second there have been other studies such as from the Road Accident Research Unit, Adelaide University that showed that traffic going slower had a slower rate in increase in accidents than faster moving traffic at the same difference is speed.

Also note that the Triangle Research Group did a study of accidents and found the same results as Solomon. However they distinguished between slower moving vehicles and vehicles that were either stopped or slowing to make a turn. When they removed those turning cars from the equation they found that the slower speed traffic had a much lower rate of accidents than that of the faster moving traffic. In short removing turning traffic eliminates Solomons curve.

Nope, you haven't. All you are doing is trying to justify your speeding.
I didn't rely on anyone else's summary, but the summary is the correct interpretation of the study; so my summary would be the same as I cited. I think you are the one that has been exposed for not having read a study in which you cited misinformation. I've read the studies, and it is you who has been shown to have a repeated pattern of ignoring real data or citing biased studies backed by insurance companies that also have been shown to ignore real data as well. Are you sure your not currently working for big insurance? You seem to follow the same pattern as they do. Also, you argue about why my links weren't the studies themselves rather than the merits of the studies (except Solomon).

Regarding relative speeds; that's all we have in the real world. The real world doesn't have a sample of one vehicle driving on it, so it doesn't make sense to talk about absolute speeds in real world scenarios. Now if you have data showing that a majority of accidents don't involve other vehicles (and even if another vehicle wasn't hit it doesn't mean they were not involved in influencing the driver's actions and maneuvers), then I'll pay more attention to this laboratory scenario of absolute speed. Otherwise, airplanes and bullet trains have higher absolute speeds, but I have not heard from anyone that they carry more risk for travelers.

You cite Adelaide University but their study says "In July 2003, the speed limit on approximately 1,100 km of rural arterial roads in South Australia was reduced from 110 km/h to 100 km/h. A previous CASR study found that the speed limit change was associated with a 1.9 km/h reduction in average speed."

If you have to resort to claiming a 1.9 km/h reduction in average speeds traveled is the reason for lower rates of accidents then I think you are grasping for straws. Do they factor in their accident rates for vehicle miles traveled? I've seen where the biased 55 stay alive proponents conveniently ignored that raising speed limits from 55 to 65 and up made our roadways SAFER by factoring vehicle miles traveled. Of course, if your goal is to say roads got more dangerous when 55 was repealed, it helps to ignore that vehicle miles traveled went way up at the same time speed limits did initially. Accidents and fatalities sure did go up absolutely, but it was because more population drove more miles, not because people sped up when 55 was abolished. Based on numerous other studies, I think you are lucky to get as much as a 1.9 km/h reduction with a 10 km/h reduction in the speed limit. And Australia??? Hmm... I could cite that Germany's high speed Autobahns make our low speed highways look like blood baths in comparison; when you are arguing the opposite should happen. I think we should stick to US roads to reduce variables here.

Also, Adelaide study is flawed because of failing on the following:
1) Assuming certain low speed limits are "magical" safe numbers.
2) “Fails to highlight that outcomes only apply to free travelling speed crashes (about 28% of serious crashes)”.
3) “Fails to recognize that a high BAC applies to the whole trip whereas free travel speed applies to only part”.
4) Fails to recognize speeds above or below site-specific mean speeds are dangerous and result in crashes.

Lastly, I think Solomon still applies because there are no "turns" on our freeways. Highways don't always have turns available. So the Triangle Research Group (hard to find any information on them) has done nothing to disprove Solomon in relation to roads that have no turns; such as Interstate Freeways.

suydam · September 2015

In the book "A Walk in the Woods" on which the movie was based they were 40ish guys with kids.

driver100 · September 2015

suydam said:
In the book "A Walk in the Woods" on which the movie was based they were 40ish guys with kids.

I did some quick research and Bryson was born in 1951 and wrote the book in 1998, so it would have taken place in his 40s.

In the movie, Redford and Nolte are about 76 years old in real life, and I believe they were playing guys who had just retired, supposedly early 60s.

And, that is all I know. I think it was funnier that they were retired, but they sure didn't look like they were in any shape to hike over 2000 miles.

ab348 · September 2015

driver100 said:

In the movie, Redford and Nolte are about 76 years old in real life, and I believe they were playing guys who had just retired, supposedly early 60s.

And, that is all I know. I think it was funnier that they were retired, but they sure didn't look like they were in any shape to hike over 2000 miles.

Yeah, it got a really poor review in the local paper for that reason, and what the critic complained was a weak script.

cdnpinhead · September 2015

Spoiler alert, at least if you haven't read the book. It turned out that they didn't do anything near the whole trail and ended up doing way less than half -- don't remember exactly how much. Given the license that movies often take with the book, there's no telling how close it is to reality. The hike(s) really did happen.

robr2 · September 2015

suydam said:
In the book "A Walk in the Woods" on which the movie was based they were 40ish guys with kids.

...and they never got anywhere near through hiking the AT. They went from Georgia to Gaitlingburg, TN and then skipped to Roanake, VA. They then hiked another 800 miles - which is an accomplishment - and stopped. All the filming was a few miles from Atlanta so they don't show how beautiful and different the AT is.

But it's a movie - I would just enjoy it for the entertainment factor as well as the Transporter film

A friend who hiked the John Muir Trail portion of the Pacific Coast Trail this summer gave a presentation last night. She did over 200 miles in about two weeks with her son and nephew and summitted Mt. Whitney on her last day.

andres3 · September 2015

For people that like this line of discussion, here's a few more key links:

http://www.ibiblio.org/rdu/sl-irrel.html

A favorite line from the conclusion of the study: "The data collected during this study indicate that there are no benefits, either from a safety or operational point of view, from establishing speed limits less than the 85th percentile speed."

Another gem:

http://www.ibiblio.org/rdu/65-lives.html

This person from Oregon got it right 9 years ago!:

http://www.ibiblio.org/rdu/sl-fearf.html

Another example of how statistics can lie:

http://www.ibiblio.org/rdu/a-liestt.html

I like this one:

http://www.ibiblio.org/rdu/conn-acd.html

& Florida State Study on speed differentials being dangerous:

http://www.ctre.iastate.edu/pubs/midcon2005/MuchuruzaSpeed.pdf

So remember, if you don't want to be relating another car buying story sooner than expected, avoid accidents by not going too slow.

abacomike · September 2015

I've been reading all these posts on driving slow and driving at higher speeds and, from my many years of driving, I have my own observations based on over 40 years of driving. I've driven from Ft. Lauderdale to San Diego in 4.5 days using nothing but interstates. I've driven from Santa Monica CA to Hazelton PA in 3 days and 2 nights using all interstates. My experiences have shown that driving too fast is just as unsafe as driving too slow. Both approaches to driving cause other drivers undue stress when trying to avoid these two types of drivers. The driver doing 40 mph in the right lane of an interstate causes approaching cars to divert into passing lanes. Speeding drives weave in and out of lanes causing other drivers to divert their attention from driving straight in their lanes to braking and abrupt steering to avoid these weaving speeders.

Both speeders and slow right lane huggers are dangerous to other drivers at about the same levels IMHO.

houdini1 · September 2015

Mike, I couldn't have said it better ! Agree 100%.

suydam · September 2015

+1.

explorerx4 · September 2015

I just drove to NYC and back over the weekend, and many times you must technically speed to keep up with traffic.

abacomike · September 2015

explorerx4 said:

I just drove to NYC and back over the weekend, and many times you must technically speed to keep up with traffic.

I believe that there are certain stretches of highways in the U.S. where what you experienced is more the rule than the exception, especially in and around more heavily populated environs.

I found that to be true in California no matter which interstate you traveled. Same with Illinois, Texas, Arizona, and a good deal of I-80, I-70, I-95 and I-10.

The northern tier of US States is another area where the speed limit is not normally observed. Here in Florida, the Turnpike is more heavily patrolled by State Troopers in and around populated areas so there tends to be less speeding on that road. But once you leave Palm Beach County, most cars are traveling at 5-10 mph over the 70 mph speed limit.

Texas was the one State where I found that if you were not driving at 80 mph just west of San Antonio all the way to El Paso on I-10, you were in danger of being rear-ended!

andres3 · September 2015

graphicguy said:
driver....steve....thanks!

Think I mentioned, I had a choice between haveing the "gas sac" or the "oil sac". The downside to gas, you can't go above 2,000 ft for a few weeks. My Doc said anywhere from 3 weeks to 5 weeks, sometimes longer. I'm in the air 3 out of every 4 weeks. No doubt there was quite a bit of pain as the gas would react quite differently at 10,000 feet than it would a sea level. The gas just dissipates over time....kind of like a baloon that deflates over time.

The oil allows me to fly immediately (but will probably lay low next week, just in case). The other advantage is there aren't as many restrictions on how you sleep, how you have to position your head, etc. The downside, they have to go back in and remove the oil sac. Something that's supposed to be minor, but still invasive.

Last night (first night back from surgery), I had to get up and stand and move around every 15 minutes. But, that was just for yesterday. I don't have those restrictions from today forward. Then, I could only sleep with my head pointing to one side (in my case, the left). Just did the 24 hour post operative check-up this a.m. Only caveat I have now is I must sleep with an eye patch and with my head elevated with 3-4 pillows for about a week. I can live with that.

Driver...you're the one who said about the legal Lemon Law process. You get what you pay for. I talked to a couple of places (on line) who do Lemon Law representation on a contingency basis. My lawyer will do it with a retainer. Not sure how much I could expect from an online outfit who would most likely cherry pick the easy cases, which although mine should be easy, Cadillac has made it clear they'd rather fight me. According to my state's (OHIO) Lemon Law rules, my case should be open and shut. It involves safety items (power steering failure and stalling) , which Cadillac gets one chance to fix (they did not). Or, be in the Cadillac repair faciility for 30 days or more (mine is sneaking up on two months). Attorney General said I should send a certified letter to Cadillac with my paperwork showing where they were non-compliant (easy to do with all the service receipts I have).

I tried to get to the CAdillac Retgional Re, like I did with my Mom's Lemon Cadillac several years ago. But apparently, the dealers aren't being coopreative in setting something up with him/her. I'm thinking of the certified letter and some bad PR should get Cadillac to do what's right. So, I'll contact the local news "Trouble shooter" guy on it. And, I'm pretty serious about getting some magnetic signs that say "CADILLAC LEMON" and plaster them on the car when/if it's returned to me.

A colleague told me a story where he was able to get CarMax to buyback a Ford Windstall (oops, I mean) Windstar lemon they sold him by picketing the lot with a big sign that said "Carmax sold me a lemon!"

coldinohio · September 2015

random comments:

S8 in the new transporter movie had quattro disabled as well as most drive electronics to allow the rear wheels to smoke, etc

bill bryson's book is a pretty good read if you like his style; he has a couple others probable better

summer tires: have had two sets: one on current A4 6 spd; after 10k miles,they get very noisy but grip is fabulous; blizzaks for winter much quieter

enjoy fusion energi-- i had a rental for a week and it took me that long to adjust to braking feel

re:caddy; was very close to buying ATS when got audi; i liked the drive better, but wanted better back seat; indy mechanic said he'd rather work on audi than caddy which helped make decision

houdini1 · September 2015

I think it was around 1974 when the national speed limit was reduced to 55 mph. My territory at the time was the western half of Oklahoma and I was probably driving around 40,000 miles per year. We had good roads and not much traffic, so the tendency was to drive around 75 to 80 mph, even after the change. I was stopped a few times but never ticketed. I think the state police realized that in that big mostly empty space, if you wanted to get anywhere you had to drive a little above the limit.

On one occasion my boss went on a trip with me of about 300 round trip miles. We took his car and he drove...at a steady 55 mph. I have never been a very good passenger and I thought I would die of boredom before that trip was over.

andres3 · September 2015

abacomike said:
I've been reading all these posts on driving slow and driving at higher speeds and, from my many years of driving, I have my own observations based on over 40 years of driving. I've driven from Ft. Lauderdale to San Diego in 4.5 days using nothing but interstates. I've driven from Santa Monica CA to Hazelton PA in 3 days and 2 nights using all interstates. My experiences have shown that driving too fast is just as unsafe as driving too slow. Both approaches to driving cause other drivers undue stress when trying to avoid these two types of drivers. The driver doing 40 mph in the right lane of an interstate causes approaching cars to divert into passing lanes. Speeding drives weave in and out of lanes causing other drivers to divert their attention from driving straight in their lanes to braking and abrupt steering to avoid these weaving speeders.

Both speeders and slow right lane huggers are dangerous to other drivers at about the same levels IMHO.

A lot of truth to that, in that speed differentials are the real danger, since speed only matters when and IF you run into something. If you are all going the same speed, it is harder to run into one another; of course, this is why we have lanes, and lane discipline should be taught. I'd like for all speeders to be able to pass on my left, and your left, and have weaving in and out of traffic become a thing of the past. I think we could easily eliminate the vast majority of "weavers" by simply eliminating the oblivious left lane blockers. I honestly don't think people weave for the "fun of it." It is simply to try and avoid adjusting their speed on the account of someone else being in the way and being mildly to severely oblivious. This goes both ways, as slow drivers don't like to be slowed down anymore than fast drivers do. It also seems apparent most people don't want to be forced to speed up by other drivers either.

suydam · September 2015

Toying around with different ideas about what to drive once we move to SoCal. Both of us are thinking of downsizing from the midsize sedan (we currently own a very nice Honda Accord EX-L). We like premium features but we also want better fuel economy and easier maneuverability.

So I thought I'd try the Corolla in a mid level trim as the cheapest option. I always try a Toyota first. I really want to like them. I have friends who love them. Stellar reliability, low depreciation, good FE, reasonable price -- yet in the end I always wind up buying something else. Took a test drive today of a 2015 Corolla LE Eco Plus. My impressions:

The pluses: I was surprised that I really liked it driving wise. It has plenty of pep and I love how it handles. It is noisy getting up to speed fast but pretty quiet after. Easy to turn and park. The seats are an upgraded cloth and are very comfortable. I liked the height adjuster. Comfortable and spacious back seats. Two six footers like my kids could be back there on a vacation trip and be fine. Huge trunk. Back seats split and fold flat too. Cold AC and it was 90 out. I didn't try the radio as they didn't have XM on this model and I didn't have my iPod with me.

The interior dash is very nice. Very straight across -- not as busy as most vehicles now, kind of retro in a refreshing way. Everything is easy to find and use.

So many of the reasons I haven't liked them in the past don't apply this time. It actually drives and handles well and the interior is pretty decent.

The minuses: Well, the interior IS nice -- to a point. Hard plastics everywhere but the dash. Where your elbow might rest on the driver side, they've wrapped a thin piece of fabric -- a piece! -- not even the whole length-- and stitched it down. Boy, that is bottom of the barrel cheap. Maybe the '16 will fix that, I don't know. Same with the steering wheel -- hard urethane. I don't even think you can get leather in the premium trim as it isn't really leather. No power adjuster for either driver or front passenger. Probably only so-so sound.

To get the features I want: sunroof, push button start, Sirius XM-- you have to get the premium trim including nav which I have no use for. You can get Sirius as an option on the Plus but that's it.

So it's better than it used to be in many ways -- light years beyond the Matrix for example -- but there are still a lot of tradeoffs. I'm not sure I could live with it more than a year or so but who knows. I'd really like to compare it to the new Volt but they won't be widely available for some time. If Buick would come out with a Verano that had good FE -- that's kind of what I'm going for.

I may try a Mazda3 next. It has similar FE to the Corolla. Hard to find Mazda dealerships in my area so it may take awhile. I was a passenger in a '15 Civic and did not care for it at all so that's out.

stever · September 2015

Hit the Chevy/Caddy dealer this afternoon. Wanted to see the used Hyundai Elantra GT but of course it'd had been sent back to their El Paso sister dealer. With caller ID I'm loathe to call ahead to verify that cars on the web inventory are still there - guess I'll have to start buying TracFones and tossing them after my dealer visits so the salespeople can't track me down.

Pretty good experience although I can see why a Cadillac buyer wouldn't want to rub shoulders with the likes of me - I was having fun sitting in Sparks. Surprisingly roomy for a little squirt. Walked the used lot and checked out, mostly in passing, a Honda Crosstour (roomier than it looks), an HHR, a chili pepper red Fiesta and the usual Equinoxes, CR-Vs and Traverses. The SRX combined mpg of 19 didn't appeal to my wife.

Salesguy was laid back and didn't even press me for contact info.

PF_Flyer · September 2015

stever said:
Hit the Chevy/Caddy dealer this afternoon. The SRX combined mpg of 19 didn't appeal to my wife.

Salesguy was laid back and didn't even press me for contact info.

Combined 19 mpg doesn't do much for a lot of folks

The "soft sell" on the other hand...

Mr_Shiftright · September 2015

Road and Track once did a study where they asked professional race drivers to drive and "find the speed where they could no longer be distracted"---that is, where they put down the cigarette, stoppped driving with one finger and hunkered down and got serious. The result was around 95 mph, which is, in my opinion, a speed above the competence level of 90% of American drivers.

oldfarmer50 · September 2015

abacomike said:

oldfarmer50 said:

roadburner said:
Out of town today, so I'm checking out the local BMW and Ford dealers. Maybe Subaru and Dodge as well/
Probably not buying anything- but you never know.
At least I might have some good stories...
RR, if you do get a Mustang get the summer tires. These p-Zero Nero all-seasons on mine are just dreadful. If I can scrape up the dough I'll replace them. I put up with sub standard rubber on the last car for years not knowing what a difference tires can make in handling.

That's why I got the 19" optional wheels with summer performance tires. They wear very quickly, but the handling is outstanding compared to the standard all-season tires.

It is quite possible I will have to replace the front tires in 4-6 months. The rears are wearing much better - have twice the tread depth left on the tears compared to the fronts.

How often do you rotate your tires or do you not keep your cars long enough?

abacomike · September 2015

Mr_Shiftright said:

Road and Track once did a study where they asked professional race drivers to drive and "find the speed where they could no longer be distracted"---that is, where they put down the cigarette, stoppped driving with one finger and hunkered down and got serious. The result was around 95 mph, which is, in my opinion, a speed above the competence level of 90% of American drivers.

I would raise that to 98% of American drivers. I would be shocked to find that 1 driver in 10 here in the U.S. is competent enough to drive at 95 mph. Not only that, I would think there aren't too many cars in the U.S. that could be driven at a sustained speed of 95 mph for any extended period of time. Just my opinion based on an educated guess - the average age of a car in the U.S. is 11 years old. I would not dream of driving an 11 year old car at 95 mph sustained speed.

abacomike · September 2015

oldfarmer50 said:

oldfarmer50 said:

Out of town today, so I'm checking out the local BMW and Ford dealers. Maybe Subaru and Dodge as well/ Probably not buying anything- but you never know. At least I might have some good stories...
RR, if you do get a Mustang get the summer tires. These p-Zero Nero all-seasons on mine are just dreadful. If I can scrape up the dough I'll replace them. I put up with sub standard rubber on the last car for years not knowing what a difference tires can make in handling.

That's why I got the 19" optional wheels with summer performance tires. They wear very quickly, but the handling is outstanding compared to the standard all-season tires.

It is quite possible I will have to replace the front tires in 4-6 months. The rears are wearing much better - have twice the tread depth left on the tears compared to the fronts.
How often do you rotate your tires or do you not keep your cars long enough?

I can't rotate the tires - staggered front/rear tires sizes.

oldfarmer50 · September 2015

bwia said:
I saw the Transporter Refueled last night. No Jason Statham but...

It features an Audi S8 instead of the A8 used in the previous films of the Transporter franchise. Impressive automobile with all the latest gadgets, including autonomous driving. One big faux pas though, Frank, the lead actor was using a run-of-the-mill cell phone rather than a built-in integrated phone with Bluetooth. Don't tell me Bluetooth is an option.

In a couple scenes the car was doing over 220 kpm. Sounds pretty fast but that is only 136 mph which is achievable even in a Hyundai Sonata. (Remember the Sonata in a police chase doing 147+)

The movie is pretty ordinary but if you enjoy watching action movies and fast cars and aggressive driving sequences then you will love the Transporter Refueled on an Imax screen. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eeoKyTHn5Kg

I liked the original Transporter with Jason Stratham. I think he drove a BMW 5 or 7 for his getaway car.

oldfarmer50 · September 2015

driver100 said:

ab348 said:

explorerx4 said:
Trailer for that movie is kind of dumb. Smoke only coming off the rear tires on an Audi?
I would suggest the entire movie is kind of dumb from what I have seen of it in commercials. If I never again see some action hero flying sideways feet-first through the air to crash through the window of a moving car, it will be too soon.
If you like real to life see A Walk in the Woods with Robert Redford and Nick Nolte. It is a real life like story about some old retired dudes kind of like most of us, who go on a 2100 mile trip through the Appalachian Mountains. Great dialogue, funny, and you can identify with it. Almost everyone in the theatre was over 50 years old, and many people applauded at the end. Magnificent scenery too.

https://youtu.be/cOF2LIAp9bw

Sorry, but the idea of a couple of old dudes in their 70s hiking 2100 miles is more unbelieveable than Transporters flying through moving car windows. I tried climbing a 2000 foot mountain last year and I swear I heard Jesus calling my name.

driver100 · September 2015

ab348 said:

driver100 said:

In the movie, Redford and Nolte are about 76 years old in real life, and I believe they were playing guys who had just retired, supposedly early 60s.

And, that is all I know. I think it was funnier that they were retired, but they sure didn't look like they were in any shape to hike over 2000 miles.

Yeah, it got a really poor review in the local paper for that reason, and what the critic complained was a weak script.

Most movies appeal to a much younger demographic. Some of the best movies I have seen have had poor reviews, because they are made for adults....and they are about real people in real situations, and they rely on great dialogue rather than car chases, bombs with digital countdowns, or people getting shot, or people doing impossible stunts. Sometimes those movies are good easy fun, but sometimes it is good to see a movie with some real thought and clever dialogue.

oldfarmer50 · September 2015

abacomike said:

explorerx4 said:

I just drove to NYC and back over the weekend, and many times you must technically speed to keep up with traffic.

I believe that there are certain stretches of highways in the U.S. where what you experienced is more the rule than the exception, especially in and around more heavily populated environs.

I found that to be true in California no matter which interstate you traveled. Same with Illinois, Texas, Arizona, and a good deal of I-80, I-70, I-95 and I-10.

The northern tier of US States is another area where the speed limit is not normally observed. Here in Florida, the Turnpike is more heavily patrolled by State Troopers in and around populated areas so there tends to be less speeding on that road. But once you leave Palm Beach County, most cars are traveling at 5-10 mph over the 70 mph speed limit.

Texas was the one State where I found that if you were not driving at 80 mph just west of San Antonio all the way to El Paso on I-10, you were in danger of being rear-ended!

When I drove from Tampa to Orlando the speed limit was 70 but to keep up with traffic I had to do 80 which was no easy feat in a rental econobox.

oldfarmer50 · September 2015

houdini1 said:
I think it was around 1974 when the national speed limit was reduced to 55 mph. My territory at the time was the western half of Oklahoma and I was probably driving around 40,000 miles per year. We had good roads and not much traffic, so the tendency was to drive around 75 to 80 mph, even after the change. I was stopped a few times but never ticketed. I think the state police realized that in that big mostly empty space, if you wanted to get anywhere you had to drive a little above the limit.

On one occasion my boss went on a trip with me of about 300 round trip miles. We took his car and he drove...at a steady 55 mph. I have never been a very good passenger and I thought I would die of boredom before that trip was over.

I too had to travel for work under that stupid 55 speed limit. When I went up to Plattsburgh and back through the mountains on I-87 I would do 70-80 until I got back into civilization. . Never saw a cop or got stopped. It was so boring traveling @ 55 on the interstates I would frequently take back roads because I could go faster. Still have exciting memories of fishtailing down some logging road in the snow in my old Plymouth.

These days in NY there would be a speed trap at the end of my driveway.

abacomike · September 2015

@driver100:

Yes, I-4 is a major E-W interstate in central Florida - and yes the speed limit is 70 but most are doing 75-80 mph.

oldfarmer50 · September 2015

abacomike said:

oldfarmer50 said:

abacomike said:

oldfarmer50 said:

roadburner said:
Out of town today, so I'm checking out the local BMW and Ford dealers. Maybe Subaru and Dodge as well/
Probably not buying anything- but you never know.
At least I might have some good stories...
RR, if you do get a Mustang get the summer tires. These p-Zero Nero all-seasons on mine are just dreadful. If I can scrape up the dough I'll replace them. I put up with sub standard rubber on the last car for years not knowing what a difference tires can make in handling.

That's why I got the 19" optional wheels with summer performance tires. They wear very quickly, but the handling is outstanding compared to the standard all-season tires.

It is quite possible I will have to replace the front tires in 4-6 months. The rears are wearing much better - have twice the tread depth left on the tears compared to the fronts.
How often do you rotate your tires or do you not keep your cars long enough?

I can't rotate the tires - staggered front/rear tires sizes.

Interesting. Can't you rotate side to side on the same axle? I was looking up tires for the Mustang on Tire Rack and they suggested staggered tires (larger in rear). Not sure the reason for that but I suspect it helps handling in a rear wheel car?

Edmunds Members - Cars and Conversations (Archived)

Comments

Helpful Tools

Most popular vehicles

Your Privacy