While I agree that your method is the best, you just can't do it in a limited mileage test. How would you drive 160 miles or so in each car and then refill with any kind of accuracy. They were probably limited by time, money and car availability precluding them from doing that.
As far as the clueless to availability. All five cars were selling in September but not the 2012 models in some cases. I think they were talking about compact cars in general going up in average transaction price. I think they just crunched the numbers and mistakenly said "all five shootout cars were available". I still found the article interesting.
Next time you can acquire all five of these cars and run them through several full tanks of gas and average the results. Then report back to us with the absolutely exact mpg numbers.
"Next time you can acquire all five of these cars and run them through several full tanks of gas and average the results. Then report back to us with the absolutely exact mpg numbers."
That's not my job. That's their job and they missed the boat completely. The entire test is predicated on fuel economy and they use a trip computer for the evaluation? Trip computers can be inaccurate by several mpg and voids the entire test.
Next point: The Focus and Civic have been available for years, as has the Elantra. They were not referencing "compact cars in general". They explictly stated, "...the first month that all five shootout cars were available". Two were not available last September. These are completely new models for 2012. The 2012 Civic and 2012 Focus were not available last September and that was the point.
That's not my job. That's their job and they missed the boat completely. The entire test is predicated on fuel economy and they use a trip computer for the evaluation? Trip computers can be inaccurate by several mpg and voids the entire test.
I totally agree with this point. Trip computers have gotten better, but even now, some of them can still be 2-3 MPG off. Unless there's a meter straight off the fuel pump, reading the exact amount of fuel used, I'd rather crunch the numbers myself, just to be sure they're accurate.
Who's to say that a manufacturer does or does not purposely inflate their trip computer numbers, just to make it "look better" during testing?
You know, it could have been a simple error in sentence construction. They might have been trying to say that May 2012 was the first month all of the cars were available, but messed it up. I see that kind of mistake in print all the time, and I think it's more likely that was the problem here vs. these folks not knowing that, for example, the 2012 Civic just became available a few weeks ago.
No, it was not. If you had read the article instead of getting incensed that they didn't follow your method of determing MPG you would see that the ratings were based on 5 or 6 major factors......not entire test on fuel economy. Exaggeration is fun but please.
I know what they said and I explained that it was a mistake to explicitly state that the exact shootout cars were for sale back then. I still believe they were making a general comment about how compact cars as a class are selling for more per transaction with the current gas prices. They shouldn't have worded it as they did but the point IMO is valid.
You know, every mag and blog review, test etc. out there makes a mistake sometimes. I could say "Ahah, they misspoke here so everything else they write is complete hogwash". I wouldn't be reading too many auto articles then. Even the car manufacturers publish wrong info on their websites sometimes and have to correct it. Nobody's perfect.....or are they?
I totally agree with this point. Trip computers have gotten better, but even now, some of them can still be 2-3 MPG off. Unless there's a meter straight off the fuel pump, reading the exact amount of fuel used, I'd rather crunch the numbers myself, just to be sure they're accurate.
Who's to say that a manufacturer does or does not purposely inflate their trip computer numbers, just to make it "look better" during testing?
They stated that the numbers they reported were from the trip computers. Didn't seem to me that they were trying to fool anybody. I think most of us here at least know that the computers can be off a little so they are giving a general idea on comparably mpg. My gosh, if they were trying to be exact do you not think they aren't smart enough to figure out what you're suggesting? They only drove the cars for 160 miles or so for the mpg test. Do you think if they were trying to determine the absolute exact MPG numbers they wouldn't have tested a little more thoroughly?
Conspiracy theory??? Oh, yeah, I'm sure they would love to be caught doing that. Plus, if you adjusted enough to materially affect the MPG(big if), wouldn't it reflect in other aspects of the drive like acceleration or possibly shift points thus lowering the score for that aspect. Remember, this was absolutely not a test for just best MPG which I think people are forgetting.
Many reviews are based on primarily on quantifiable and objective data as they should be. Things like weight, skidpad results, fuel economy, acceleration, braking results, dBa interior sound level, engine horsepower & torque, RPM/MPH, gearing, power to weight, CO2 emissions, price, warranty, fuel requirements, airbags, cost, tire/wheel size, suspension architecture, valvetrain, and about 50 other things.
I made a simple point about USAToday/cars.com joke of an article. It's titled "...high-mileage cars..." and they use trip computers over 160 miles to determine mileage. I collect, interpret, and analyze data for a living. I made a point about this article, that is all. James Healey at USAToday is not a good source of information for me. Everyone gets to pick and choose.
Many reviews are based on primarily on quantifiable and objective data as they should be. Things like weight, skidpad results, fuel economy, acceleration, braking results, dBa interior sound level, engine horsepower & torque, RPM/MPH, gearing, power to weight, CO2 emissions, price, warranty, fuel requirements, airbags, cost, tire/wheel size, suspension architecture, valvetrain, and about 50 other things.
Didn't GM have teams of financial analysts who would analyze every new vehicle, figuring out where they could cut costs, while making sure the vehicles met specs? And didn't that cheapening cause a mass flock to other makes?
Just saying that objective specifications are not everything, or maybe even the most important thing. I'm sure Audi's sumptuous interiors are not measured in the specs. Just because something is hard to measure doesn't mean it isn't important, and vice-versa.
"I'm sure Audi's sumptuous interiors are not measured in the specs."
After working as a quality assurance engineer for Lear Corporation, I can assure you that every aspect of Audi's interiors are measured by specifications.
I'll bow out of this conversation. I attempted to point out the limited value of the USAToday article and can see it was not worth the time or effort. So long.
After working as a quality assurance engineer for Lear Corporation, I can assure you that every aspect of Audi's interiors are measured by specifications.
Of course each material has specifications. I was speaking about data-based auto reviews, and I don't usually see the material specifications included in those publications. The type of cow, skin thickness, and square footage of the leather is not what I'm talking about.
There are harder-to-measure aesthetic qualities of vehicles that are important to buyers, which is why subjectivity needs to be in the reviews. And it's why reviewers vary in their opinions. Vehicle appearance is another example. Or even NVH.
I don't disagree about some of the flaws you pointed out in the original review that was discussed.
Of course each material has specifications. I was speaking about data-based auto reviews, and I don't usually see the material specifications included in those publications. The type of cow, skin thickness, and square footage of the leather is not what I'm talking about.
Leather grade, dye type, where it is, all the things you mentioned and more are metrics in what makes an interior "feel good." There are quality metrics around every element in the interior, panel gap, color match, how every switch works (Honda is one of the brands synonymous with switch feel), everything your hand touches, how far away switches are, switch priority, etc.
There are harder-to-measure aesthetic qualities of vehicles that are important to buyers, which is why subjectivity needs to be in the reviews. And it's why reviewers vary in their opinions. Vehicle appearance is another example. Or even NVH.
There are several researchers working in a field that seems to be termed "engineering aesthetics" where they are trying to quantify these qualities. In some areas, its not as hard as one would think. There are basic ratios about how styling elements relate to each other that drive a lot of perception. Its some interesting stuff.
NVH doesn't exactly count. There are enormous amounts of data about what feeds customer satisfaction for NVH and sound quality. The targets aren't always achievable, but the direction is well defined. An example would be the engine starting on a 90s Corolla compared to a 2nd gen Prius. The engine turns on and off under all different conditions on the Prius and for the most part, its imperceptible to the driver while the Corolla of 5 years earlier would inform the driver every time the engine did anything. Agruably, the target setting might have something to do with it; the Mustang V8 got so quiet inside they had to add a "bass tube" from the engine to the interior to bring in the engine noise that appeals to that crowd.
When I first saw one in the flesh I thought the windshield was too big and the hood too short but after seeing them parked and on the road I would have to agree with MSN. It's a very sleek and proportioned look and IMO looks better than the Sonata.
Are you looking to buy a compact or sub-compact car, but you’re waiting for a better deal? Or are you looking trying to sell a used car and you’re seeing that prices are (or aren’t) going down? A reporter is interested in talking with you. Please reach out to pr@edmunds.com by Wednesday, July 13, 2011.
MODERATOR /ADMINISTRATOR Find me at kirstie_h@edmunds.com - or send a private message by clicking on my name. 2015 Kia Soul, 2021 Subaru Forester (kirstie_h), 2024 GMC Sierra 1500 (mr. kirstie_h) Review your vehicle
I loved Honda's response. Almost as if they were saying, "We think it's a great car... as long as you don't consider how it drives, except for fuel economy. But when you pay for the gas, get in a crash, or worry about repairing it, it's a great car."
Problem is, there's several other fuel-sipping, crash-worthy, reliable small cars out there now. That's no longer enough to be competitive. It's not the Civic and Corolla Show anymore.
Problem is, there's several other fuel-sipping, crash-worthy, reliable small cars out there now. That's no longer enough to be competitive. It's not the Civic and Corolla Show anymore.
Exactly what I was thinking. It's not that the evolutionary changes made by the Civic weren't good, it's the revolutionary changes made by the competition that were so much better, and have raised the bar significantly in this class.
The Elantra, Focus, and Cruze have come out of nowhere and made this segment hugely competitive again. I just read a review by Car and Driver about the Civic Si, and their comments about the interior were interesting:
The bunk-bed layout for the IP is okay, but the garish LCD gauges are right out of a RadioShack in Akron. The mouse-fur headliner suffers from the mange, and there’s a lumpy, wrinkled collar of felt that surrounds the steering column, shouting to one and all, “Yessir, that’s right, I actually am the cheapest bit of flotsam in the universe!”
The most surprising comment was the next sentence:
Note to Honda: Check out the Ford Focus’s interior.
This comment would've been unfathomable as soon as 5 years ago... Not anymore.
I have a feeling the next Corolla may suffer the same fate as well.
Not trying to comment on Japanese society norms as good or bad but my impression is that they, on average, seem to be a very loyal bunch. I wonder if the thinking of senior(both in status and age) management at both of these companies assume brand loyalty to be similar worldwide and just don't get that consumers in the rest of the world will drop a brand if it doesn't stay competitive no matter how dependable it is. Especially now that dependability is not as exclusive as it was just a short 10 years ago.
I remember over the years hearing about how the Civic was the end-all, be-all of cars in this class because of what publications like Consumer Reports said about it. Now that the 2012 Civic has been panned by Consumer Reports, we hear that it doesn't matter what they think about the Civic. I really love it when someone says something stupid like "My 1994 Accord still runs great so that's all I need to know about Hondas and the new Civic." What? Do you realize how foolish you sound?
I had a Sonata and a Sephia in the mid-to late-1990's and I'm glad the Honda and Toyota folks are seeing a change in the automotive landscape.
You could be right about the brand loyalty thing, but it would be in their best interests to remember their own history. During the 80s and 90s they got popular in part by breaking the brand loyalty that the US had to the domestics, who at the time had the habit of resting on their laurels while producing increasingly mediocre products.
I remember over the years hearing about how the Civic was the end-all, be-all of cars in this class because of what publications like Consumer Reports said about it.
The reason we heard so much about how the Civic was the end-all, be-all of cars in this class was because... it was! Compare for example the 1984 Civic S or the 1988 Civic LX or even the 1992 Civic EX to what else was available then. Then IMO, in 1996 the downward spiral started, while other cars got better. In some cases a LOT better.
It's not that the new Civic is a terrible car. It's that it isn't all that much better than, say, a 1988 Civic... while other small cars have overtaken the Civic. And Corolla (even moreso the Corolla).
I finally got to drive the Cruze for an extended period thanks to Hertz at DFW. I got a white LT with alloys and grey interior and drove it for 3 days around the Irving area. Overall I liked the car. It had a solid, upscale feel to it. I didn't feel as if I were driving an economy car. The only thing that detracted from the quality feel was an occasional loud and sharp thump from the rear suspension. Other than that, the car was quiet with a well-controlled ride. I did hear the little turbo engine growl when pressed, but it was a pleasing kind of snarl to my ears.
Acceleration was adequate for an economy car. Low-end torque is good, but it takes a firm press on the gas pedal to get the car moving at speed. Personally I don't need anything quicker than the Cruze. Fuel economy is more important to me.
Which brings me to the one real negative thing about the car: secondary controls, specifically the trip computer. I sat in the rental car lot for 5 minutes trying to find the control to switch the multi-function display. Nowhere to be found. No owner's manual in the glove box, either. So I couldn't use the trip computer. Most cars have an obvious button, sometimes on the steering wheel, to control the trip computer.
The cloth driver's seat was very comfortable, and snug but in a good way. I adjusted it so the forward tilt adjustment was at the top, then adjusted the rear tilt for best thigh support. I love the dual height adjusters! At that height, I could move the driver's seat forward enough so there was adequate leg room in back. And with the seat that high, there was plenty of toe space under the driver's seat. The back seat cushion had good thigh support and I think would be fine for kids and average-height adults, as long as the front seat occupants aren't tall (I'm 5'10").
The car handled pretty well and felt nimble, but I noticed the steering felt dead on-center at speed. But the car tracked straight enough. The highway ride was smooth for a small car.
The trunk was roomy, with traditional hinges, but was oddly shaped in that there's a big cutout in the center of the floor. It was nice for small cargo, but I'd rather have a flat load floor with a covered bin. Actually, I'd rather have a spare tire (optional on the Cruze).
One little annoyance was the low, protruding air dam in front. I'm sure it's great for fuel economy, but it was hard not to scrape it when parking.
Now that I've figured out how to adjust the driver's seat for decent room in back, the Cruze will be on my shopping list for my next car. I'll have to try the 6MT though, including the Eco.
My wife has finally gotten tired of her '01 Elantra. There isn't anything wrong with it other than 10 years of age - door dings, minor rust, etc. - and it has relatively low miles (79K) but as several people have expressed interest in it, she decided to sell it & buy something new.
She does not to drive larger vehicles so mid-sizers and up are out.
Based on test-sits at the past 2 Chicago Auto Shows we came up with a short list: Cruze, new Elantra, Sentra, new Focus, and Forte with the Tucson & Outlander Sport being possible CUVs. The Focus wasn't available to sit in at the time but we still wanted to consider it.
She has now test-driven the Cruze, Outlander Sport, Tucson, and a used '11 Elantra (no '12s, indeed no new Elantras in stock). The 2 CUVs were eliminated as to get equipment she wanted they got to be too pricey. And as much of a Mitsu fan that I am, we agreed that the 2.0L/CVT combo in the Sport just doesn't do it. Too buzzy under acceleration and she didn't like the CVT trait of adjusting engine revs v. shifting. On the Tucson the ride felt very strange on my lower back - firm & bouncy I expect but the impact was felt almost entirely in my lower back so I suspect there may be a seat design issue for some people.
My wife gets cold easily and it really hits her hard, so heated seats are a priority. Cloth/leather doesn't matter; just heat. And after almost two years with my car, the availability of navi & a rear camera would be nice though not must-haves. Beyond that are typical concerns: safety, fuel economy, price, etc.
So a Cruze has to be LT2 or LTZ to get seat heaters. We settled on an LTZ with RS package (body kit which we actually like) and the Pioneer speaker upgrade. Ride was very firm, bordering on harsh. The passenger door arm rest seemed oddly high up and intrusive. I didn't think during our drive to try various seat adjustments. Power with the 1.4T was good; it had plenty of pickup. Very quiet cabin; Chevy did an excellent job there. Most controls seemed good; she didn't play with the DIC. Overall we were fairly impressed.
The Elantra, though, seemed to just fit her like a glove. The seat was comfortable right away, the ride was firm without being harsh. Power from the DI 1.8 seemed just as good as the Cruze and the Elantra doesn't recommend premium fuel. Visibility is good though the hood slopes down so much it isn't immediately obvious there's anything in front of the windshield; judging where the front of the car is would take getting used to. What we drive was a GLS but we did play with the navi in the Tucson so we saw how it worked. Though the dealer didn't have any new '12s in stock, we did find a Limited with navi/rear-view cam and a few other things in her second-choice color in their upcoming allocation. Temptation ran high but we still walked out without a commitment.
Based on the drives and on some further research we did a paper (computer) elimination of the others. Forte only offers heated seats in the SX. That trim comes with a 2.4L engine, which offers power my wife doesn't want/need and penalizes you significantly at the pump. Focus, if you can manage Ford's lousy online build tool, gets to be expensive when optioned even close to the same as Cruze/Elantra. And fuel economy is still a little behind. Sentra was a close call but in the end it still fell behind. Plus, it's starting to be a dated platform among the compact competition.
So we've come to the realization that the best car to replace her Elantra is the Elantra. We'll probably pull the trigger later today.
Other comments: - We'll finance through our bank, who offers 2.84% on 60 month loans; cheaper than the 3.9% the automakers seem stuck on. - Other cars I didn't mention - Civic, Corolla, Mazda 3, Suzuki, Lancer, etc. - Were all eliminated based on various things. Mostly reviewed at the auto show, price, driver seat comfort/position, visibility, crash test results, style were all factors. - Even with GM Supplier Discount (which is more or less the best we're going to get on the Cruze), the Elantra with a small negotiated discount still presented a better value. Same or better features for about a grand less. - We're disappointed that Hyundai has pulled owner loyalty cash for their hot sellers. - Everything we drove had decent head room and enough seat adjustments & front seat travel that comfortable driving positions were possible. Rear seat leg room was deemed adequate or better in all of them. Cargo capacity is what you expect; the small trunk openings on the sedans will make loading/unloading deep into the trunk more of an effort but trunk space itself is good.
If you can wait a little bit you might check out the all-new Impreza, with greatly improved fuel economy for 2012. It looks like a winner to me, on paper and in photos at least. I can't wait to drive it. I think it will be a strong contender for my next car, given it has AWD (very handy in Minnesnowta), a classy-looking and roomy interior, competitive fuel economy (finally!), and price is not much more than cars like the Cruze, Elantra, and Focus. The current Impreza has one of the smoothest rides in the class so I am hoping that was carried over to the new car.
Planning on starting our new car search within a week or two and since we're just narrowing the list down, what days would be best to go in? Was thinking on a Tuesday through Thursday, maybe even Friday morning when traffic is pretty low. Don't want to take a salesman away from a possible sale on a busy time...that's just not fair! And right now our list isn't too big...Cruze/Verano, Elantra/Accent, Forte/Rio, Focus/Fiesta, Mazda3, Sentra/Versa and Honda. We'll have to wait on some of the newer models to come in but we aren't that much of a hurry...just don't want anything else to go on the Mazda.
The Sandman :sick: :shades:
2023 Hyundai Kona Limited AWD (wife) / 2015 Golf TSI (me) / 2019 Chevrolet Cruze Premier RS (daughter #1) / 2020 Hyundai Accent SE (daughter #2) / 2023 Subaru Impreza Base (son)
Well, a price of "not much more" than Cruze etc. puts it a little more than she's willing to pay unless she forgoes a lot of options. $25-26K OTD is her cap, which means, with Illinois taxes, that $24K is pretty much her pre-TTL price ceiling. You can get a fully loaded Elantra for that, a nicely loaded Cruze, and somewhat less loaded Focus.
Anyway, the basics on the Impreza don't look bad but it won't be out in time for her to consider this round. Maybe in 8 or 10 years when she next buys.
What, she can't wait a few more weeks to trade in that Elantra with only 79k miles on it?
A loaded Impreza will easily fit under $24k. But it looks like your wife is set on the Elantra. Having owned Elantras for 11 years, including a 2001 GLS I bought new for $11,700 + T&L and a 2004 GT, loaded for $13.2k + T&L, I never thought I'd see the day when "Elantra" and "$24k" were said in the same sentence, with a straight face. OK, maybe I did but not this soon.
Actually, she can't wait. She has a buyer for her '01 right now. This isn't a matter of ditching a failing car; it's taking a good deal that fell into our lap v. waiting & hoping for the best. So I suppose she could wait, but the wait adds risk.
According to Edmunds, the Impreza Limited starts at $22,345 and you can "Expect to pay a $5,000 premium if you want that top-of-the-line 2012 Impreza." I'll take that to mean that sub-$24K it's nicely equipped but not loaded. Which might be enough for her equipment-wise but if the Elantra offers more for the same or less $, then it still wins that comparison. I also don't know how she'd react to the CVT as she didn't like the way the engine revved in the CVT-equipped Outlander Sport. CVTs feel disassociated with acceleration and she disliked that.
As to Elantra pricing and compact pricing in general, I agree it seems the category is getting pricey. I understand the cars are better and have more equipment but the car makers are in danger of pricing themselves out of the market if things continue at this pace. I don't think wages are keeping pace with the rate of price increases.
And right now our list isn't too big...Cruze/Verano, Elantra/Accent, Forte/Rio, Focus/Fiesta, Mazda3, Sentra/Versa and Honda.
Wow that's a long list.
My sincere recommendation would be to consider a CPO or couple of year old higher trim car. This will get you better features, better safety equipment, and overall a better built car. IE - get a Corolla versus the Sentra. Or a Civic versus the Fit.
The Cruze, being a mid-size sedan is actually already in that segment, so a 1 year old Cruze would save you a ton of money. Yaris priced and without a doubt better than that tin can in every way.
Other cars to consider, of course, are almost anything in the midsize category, including a few luxury models.
My top pick? The Lexus IS300, was essentially a luxury spec RWD car based off of the Corolla platform. You can get a mint condition one for not a lot of money and it'll out-everything any of these budget rides. Plus, it's super reliable. Late 90s BMW 3 series performance for pocket change. A real hidden gem that's off of almost everyone's radar.
A 2005 IS300 can be had for about 12-16K, which is budget car range. Me? I'd buy one of these and laugh like an evil overlord at the chumps who are buying new cars that are half as good for the same money.
If MPG is everything, then you would do well with most of the high-mpg cars like the Accord with the 4 cylinder engine (manual is a must - it's video game easy to drive manual in this car, BTW). A 3-4 year old Accord like this will still be a better car to drive than a new Fit, simply because it is a more solid car to begin with.
Let someone else eat the depreciation (it's good to be greedy and pinch pennies these days :P ). Any car these days will last 150-200K miles with proper care, so a car with 20-50K on it, used, is hardly worth worrying over.
Why would anyone want to get that POS car vs. the Sentra, which is roomier, has a much nicer interior, more comfortable driving position, and can be had for a good discount as a new car?
I get to drive many Corollas as rentals (unfortunately) and lease a 2010 Sentra, and also drive those a lot as rentals. I think the Sentra is a much better car overall than the Corolla. Whenever a Corolla is pushed on me at the rental lot, I try to change it for something else... almost anything else except a Yaris or Matrix. I'd rather not rent a Sentra because I drive that at home, but I don't mind it if that's all they have. When I rent cars I like to drive cars I haven't driven before when possible. Like the Cruze I got to drive last week. I also got good time behind the wheel in Mazda3's, Elantras, and the new Jetta among the latest compact designs. Would love to rent a new Focus and Civic but haven't seen those on the lots yet (I have to use Hertz or National mainly).
P.S. The Cruze is a compact. The Accord however is a mid-sized car, so really not pertinent to this discussion.
My wife will only buy a new car and she's willing to pay the price premium to get one. Funny, I just showed her the new Jetta, Mazda3 & and IS250 as we were walking into the ATT store to look at a smart phone for her. I've bought used before and have had some problems but I would look at used again when I get ready to buy my next car as I'm definitely going to get a power seat and a more luxury car that I have now since I've never had one before...price was always an issue.
So she'll need a new compact or sub-compact car for her next ride. And I've got a feeling that around $22k will be her upper limit, so that narrows the list down quite a bit I'd say. From her talking about it, she really seems to want a smaller car like the Accent or Rio size. I personally think a compact would suit her better but it's her choice. I like the looks of the Fiesta myself but from the pics I've seen, not to many little bins to put things in the dash like our current cars and she likes that feature. The Focus might have more, we just haven't checked that yet. And we've never had a Ford in our 30 year marriage yet, so a 2013 model might be doable. Have seen a few of both the Fiesta & Focus on the roads and they look pretty nice on the outside. And there's a Ford dealer not to far away.
Since we're just starting our search, is it better to call the internet person 1st to meet him so if we do decide on a Ford, we could go through him or is it best to just walk in and let a regular salesman take the lead. We've bought the last 4 cars by going through the internet person all with good results.
T I A for any help folks.
The Sandman :sick: :shades:
2023 Hyundai Kona Limited AWD (wife) / 2015 Golf TSI (me) / 2019 Chevrolet Cruze Premier RS (daughter #1) / 2020 Hyundai Accent SE (daughter #2) / 2023 Subaru Impreza Base (son)
So even a 1 or 2 year old certified car is out? Man, I feel for your pocketbook, especially in this tough economy. You can get SO much car a year or two old these days. Dealers literally have thousands and thousands of CPO cars rotting on their lots right now as everyone is afraid to spend a dime on anything.
And, as I pointed out, a you can get car with a much better original price range. ie - if your budget is 20K or so, you can even be looking at 1 or 2 year old Accords and so on. I've even seen 2 year old TSXs going for around 22K. Since most cars depreciate 30-40% in the first two years, that means a 30K car for 22K or so. Still has a warranty, still smells pretty new, and often you can find one with 10 or 20K on it - barely broken in. And if we're talking domestics, well, it's pretty much anything you want. I've even see CPO Cadillacs going for 22K or so.
If it HAS to be new, though, there is only one choice - get a Mustang. 300HP, 30mpg highway, and 22K before year-end rebates. Truecar.com has a 2011 Mustang for $20,650. It's without a doubt my top pick for around 20K. Add a couple of basic options and it's way more fun than any economy car.
P.S. The Cruze is classified by the EPA as midsize. GM just chooses to lie in its marketing and say that it's a compact.
Also, I obviously meant to get the Corolla instead of the Yaris. You never want to buy any maker's absolute bottom model as they cut corners that really shouldn't be cut and leave out things that you want like garage door openers, keyless entry, power seats, side airbags, and so on.
You can get SO much car a year or two old these days. Dealers literally have thousands and thousands of CPO cars rotting on their lots right now as everyone is afraid to spend a dime on anything.
This may have been true 3-4 years ago but not now. You really need to get out more or at least read more. Many used cars, especially CPOs, are selling for as much or more than the same car brand new. Used cars in general are hot commidities and are in short supply. Used cars rotting on lots is just not the case and that has raised prices on both used car and trade-ins. There has been many news articles and magazine items discussing this. Used car prices for the same car (but a year older) are actually up versus what they sold a year ago.
I'm not saying that it isn't possible to find a deal on a CPO but it isn't easy right now. Besides, you are looking at it from a strictly financial point of view. Many people only buy a car after many years and just want a new car. It's nice to try and "educate" people but you assume they don't know that a car already suffering a huge chunk of depreciation is fiscally frugal. I think most people do know this but are willing to drop the coin to get something brand new. I bought used cars for years but for the last twenty or so have bought nothing but new vehicles. Would I have $40-50k more cash now if I had continued to buy used cars all those years? Most certainly but money isn't everything and if enough people followed your advice there would be no CPO cars because the car companies would be out of business.
I just ask that you quit trying to make anyone that buys a new car sound naive or wasteful. The vast majority are neither. They just have different priorities than you.
But wait... one SHOULD look at it from a strictly financial point of view when making a large financial investment.
If you can get a car with 20K on it for 5K less, and the car in question is known to be good for 200K+ miles, sacrificing 10% of its life for a 25% reduction in price is a complete no-brainer.
It's all about quality. Many CPO cars are so close to new that you can't hardly tell that they've ever been owned before. This also includes dealer and program cars, which are basically "new" but with 2-5K on them. These can also save you a ton of money. Of course, the best deals are domestics, naturally.
You are exactly right...not everyone wants a used or CPO car...my wife is one of those folks. Being a CPA, she understands things from the financial side but she wants what she wants...and she can afford it! So I just give her a list of what I think we should test drive and we go. The eventual decision will be hers...it'll be her daily driver and "she must be happy"! We live a very frugal lifestyle but we decided long ago that she will always get what she wants...which is new. And right now, we've decided to try to go over 100k on her car, a new record for us.
But Plekto, I understand exactly what you are saying and have done that in the past and might do it again in the future. But this world has so many people with different opinions on everything, as I'm sure many households go through the same dilemma about new vs. used. I wish everyone luck with whatever they purchase. I just know one thing, there will be a new car on her side of the garage within the next 12 months!
The Sandman :sick: :shades:
2023 Hyundai Kona Limited AWD (wife) / 2015 Golf TSI (me) / 2019 Chevrolet Cruze Premier RS (daughter #1) / 2020 Hyundai Accent SE (daughter #2) / 2023 Subaru Impreza Base (son)
While the financial point of view is important, I disagree that "one SHOULD look at it from a strictly financial point of view" to the exclusion of other factors. Also, there are financial issues beyond initial purchase price.
- Safety: New cars are the most likely to have the best safety ratings and most modern safety equipment. Better safety may net you cheaper insurance premiums. - Reduced operating costs: Newer cars are sporting longer maintenance intervals and better fuel economy, both of which can mean buying a new car costs less over the ownership period even if the car costs more initially. - Availability of specific features. Example: Now that using a phone is only legal if using a hands-free system, BlueTooth support is mandatory for people who for whatever reason use a phone while driving. BT has been available for years but it's only now starting to actually be a standard feature v. a semi-expensive add-on (which makes it harder to find in a used car). - Better finance rates: With few exceptions, if you finance your car like most folks do you'll find cheaper interest rates on new cars.
Besides, new car depreciation isn't what it was five years ago. Right now I see a nearby dealer has a 2011 Elantra Limited with over 23K miles for $21,995. Let's assume we can talk the dealer down to $21K even. Compare that to my wife's $23.3K negotiated price for a '12 Elantra with navi/camera, sunroof, and every other option & accessory except HomeLink. For the $2300 difference she'd get navi, a rear camera, a sunroof, the entire factory warranty, and a car that no one else has driven. And the understanding that if she were to drive 20K miles in the first year it'll probably lose only around 10% of it's value.
So even a 1 or 2 year old certified car is out? Man, I feel for your pocketbook, especially in this tough economy. You can get SO much car a year or two old these days. Dealers literally have thousands and thousands of CPO cars rotting on their lots right now as everyone is afraid to spend a dime on anything.
Being in the business, I can promise you that this statement could not be further from the truth. Pre-owned cars are at an all-time high. Auction prices are almost near retail. Manufacturers are up charging for lease returns, in many cases several thousand over the residual buyout that a customer can pay, if they wanted to buy out their lease.
Now is a terrible time to buy a used car, from a financial perspective.
Funny, though... I seem to find many listings near me that are at a reasonable price. They can ask anything that they want. But the car can also rot on the lot for six months as well, because unless it's an exotic or something, all of these cars are easy to find 40 or 50 for sale in most major cities. Most dealers will sell their cars for a lot less than they advertise.
But this aside, if it has to be a new car, the most car for the money currently, in your price range is the new V6 Mustang.
But this aside, if it has to be a new car, the most car for the money currently, in your price range is the new V6 Mustang.
Is this a compact sedan? You are consistently talking about cars other than what the discussion is about.
Used CPOs are selling for very close to new car prices and all cars are selling at discounts from "asking price".....old and new. It just so happens that at this point in time new cars are the better deal. It's all over the press and internet...not hard to find if one only looks.
A reporter is interested in talking with consumers about how fuel economy requirements are changing what people drive. He is looking for consumers who consider fuel economy their top consideration while shopping for vehicles that range from pickups to luxury cars to EVs. If you are interested in commenting on your experience, please reply with your name, phone number and email address to pr@edmunds.com no later than 5pm Pacific this Wednesday, September 21st.
MODERATOR /ADMINISTRATOR Find me at kirstie_h@edmunds.com - or send a private message by clicking on my name. 2015 Kia Soul, 2021 Subaru Forester (kirstie_h), 2024 GMC Sierra 1500 (mr. kirstie_h) Review your vehicle
Funny, though... I seem to find many listings near me that are at a reasonable price
Here is the thing about "listing prices". Many dealers nation wide have adopted the philosophy of advertising a car at a specific price, however, that may be the prices after a $2,000 down payment and the customer MUST finance with the dealer. This is common practice in the NY/NY area. It's rather quite disgusting.
I attend Manheim auctions on a nationwide scale, and every brand is selling for thousands over wholesale value, and almost near retail.
That's not on our short list...nor will it ever be! We're looking for compact and subcompact cars...period. And it will have to be new for the wife. So any advice on any of the models that fall into our categories would be useful. Thanks all and I am,
The Sandman :sick: :shades:
2023 Hyundai Kona Limited AWD (wife) / 2015 Golf TSI (me) / 2019 Chevrolet Cruze Premier RS (daughter #1) / 2020 Hyundai Accent SE (daughter #2) / 2023 Subaru Impreza Base (son)
Well, technically, the EPA classifies the Mustang as a sub-compact car. The rear seat is basically an afterthought, but it is usable for adults in a pinch, about the same as the rear seat on a typical budget car. But if you are looking at only the two of you in the equation, well, a two door car should be fine. I recommend it because of the decent MPG and the low price, plus the fact that it is a lot of fun to drive. It'll go 0-60 almost twice as fast as a Yaris.
The other car to consider is obviously the Cruze. http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/2008car1tablef.jsp?id=31377 This model requires you to get it with manual, but it's basically getting Yaris MPG or close to it. Yes, note the "midsize" rating. GM is getting good lately at shrinking the exteriors of their vehicles to make a midsize sedan look like a size smaller one.
What part of no Mustang or any thing in that catagory don't you understand. He's interested in something like a Cruze, Elantra, Focus, Accent, Fiesta. If you got some words of advise on them, say it. Tey're something that are comfortible, get great mileage, and low, low maintinence. He's not looking for a hotrod that'll 0-60 in 3 seconds. I've rdrove the new Mustang, an I think the ride sucks. Surely wouldn't want to take a trip out of state in one, thats for sure.
Comments
As far as the clueless to availability. All five cars were selling in September but not the 2012 models in some cases. I think they were talking about compact cars in general going up in average transaction price. I think they just crunched the numbers and mistakenly said "all five shootout cars were available". I still found the article interesting.
Next time you can acquire all five of these cars and run them through several full tanks of gas and average the results. Then report back to us with the absolutely exact mpg numbers.
That's not my job. That's their job and they missed the boat completely. The entire test is predicated on fuel economy and they use a trip computer for the evaluation? Trip computers can be inaccurate by several mpg and voids the entire test.
Next point: The Focus and Civic have been available for years, as has the Elantra. They were not referencing "compact cars in general". They explictly stated, "...the first month that all five shootout cars were available". Two were not available last September. These are completely new models for 2012. The 2012 Civic and 2012 Focus were not available last September and that was the point.
I totally agree with this point. Trip computers have gotten better, but even now, some of them can still be 2-3 MPG off. Unless there's a meter straight off the fuel pump, reading the exact amount of fuel used, I'd rather crunch the numbers myself, just to be sure they're accurate.
Who's to say that a manufacturer does or does not purposely inflate their trip computer numbers, just to make it "look better" during testing?
No, it was not. If you had read the article instead of getting incensed that they didn't follow your method of determing MPG you would see that the ratings were based on 5 or 6 major factors......not entire test on fuel economy. Exaggeration is fun but please.
I know what they said and I explained that it was a mistake to explicitly state that the exact shootout cars were for sale back then. I still believe they were making a general comment about how compact cars as a class are selling for more per transaction with the current gas prices. They shouldn't have worded it as they did but the point IMO is valid.
You know, every mag and blog review, test etc. out there makes a mistake sometimes. I could say "Ahah, they misspoke here so everything else they write is complete hogwash". I wouldn't be reading too many auto articles then. Even the car manufacturers publish wrong info on their websites sometimes and have to correct it. Nobody's perfect.....or are they?
Who's to say that a manufacturer does or does not purposely inflate their trip computer numbers, just to make it "look better" during testing?
They stated that the numbers they reported were from the trip computers. Didn't seem to me that they were trying to fool anybody. I think most of us here at least know that the computers can be off a little so they are giving a general idea on comparably mpg. My gosh, if they were trying to be exact do you not think they aren't smart enough to figure out what you're suggesting? They only drove the cars for 160 miles or so for the mpg test. Do you think if they were trying to determine the absolute exact MPG numbers they wouldn't have tested a little more thoroughly?
Conspiracy theory??? Oh, yeah, I'm sure they would love to be caught doing that. Plus, if you adjusted enough to materially affect the MPG(big if), wouldn't it reflect in other aspects of the drive like acceleration or possibly shift points thus lowering the score for that aspect. Remember, this was absolutely not a test for just best MPG which I think people are forgetting.
The title of the article is regarding fuel economy and price. They blew it and the entire test is a joke.
I've spent over 20 years as a manufacturing engineer, much of automotive, and understand yellow journalism. This article was just that.
I made a simple point about USAToday/cars.com joke of an article. It's titled "...high-mileage cars..." and they use trip computers over 160 miles to determine mileage. I collect, interpret, and analyze data for a living. I made a point about this article, that is all. James Healey at USAToday is not a good source of information for me. Everyone gets to pick and choose.
Didn't GM have teams of financial analysts who would analyze every new vehicle, figuring out where they could cut costs, while making sure the vehicles met specs? And didn't that cheapening cause a mass flock to other makes?
Just saying that objective specifications are not everything, or maybe even the most important thing. I'm sure Audi's sumptuous interiors are not measured in the specs. Just because something is hard to measure doesn't mean it isn't important, and vice-versa.
After working as a quality assurance engineer for Lear Corporation, I can assure you that every aspect of Audi's interiors are measured by specifications.
I'll bow out of this conversation. I attempted to point out the limited value of the USAToday article and can see it was not worth the time or effort. So long.
Of course each material has specifications. I was speaking about data-based auto reviews, and I don't usually see the material specifications included in those publications. The type of cow, skin thickness, and square footage of the leather is not what I'm talking about.
There are harder-to-measure aesthetic qualities of vehicles that are important to buyers, which is why subjectivity needs to be in the reviews. And it's why reviewers vary in their opinions. Vehicle appearance is another example. Or even NVH.
I don't disagree about some of the flaws you pointed out in the original review that was discussed.
Leather grade, dye type, where it is, all the things you mentioned and more are metrics in what makes an interior "feel good." There are quality metrics around every element in the interior, panel gap, color match, how every switch works (Honda is one of the brands synonymous with switch feel), everything your hand touches, how far away switches are, switch priority, etc.
There are harder-to-measure aesthetic qualities of vehicles that are important to buyers, which is why subjectivity needs to be in the reviews. And it's why reviewers vary in their opinions. Vehicle appearance is another example. Or even NVH.
There are several researchers working in a field that seems to be termed "engineering aesthetics" where they are trying to quantify these qualities. In some areas, its not as hard as one would think. There are basic ratios about how styling elements relate to each other that drive a lot of perception. Its some interesting stuff.
NVH doesn't exactly count. There are enormous amounts of data about what feeds customer satisfaction for NVH and sound quality. The targets aren't always achievable, but the direction is well defined. An example would be the engine starting on a 90s Corolla compared to a 2nd gen Prius. The engine turns on and off under all different conditions on the Prius and for the most part, its imperceptible to the driver while the Corolla of 5 years earlier would inform the driver every time the engine did anything. Agruably, the target setting might have something to do with it; the Mustang V8 got so quiet inside they had to add a "bass tube" from the engine to the interior to bring in the engine noise that appeals to that crowd.
MSNAutos
I can envision Hyundai's Marketing department making a big deal out of this one.
MODERATOR /ADMINISTRATOR
Find me at kirstie_h@edmunds.com - or send a private message by clicking on my name.
2015 Kia Soul, 2021 Subaru Forester (kirstie_h), 2024 GMC Sierra 1500 (mr. kirstie_h)
Review your vehicle
Wow! Just... wow!
Maybe the Aztec's were right...
Problem is, there's several other fuel-sipping, crash-worthy, reliable small cars out there now. That's no longer enough to be competitive. It's not the Civic and Corolla Show anymore.
Exactly what I was thinking. It's not that the evolutionary changes made by the Civic weren't good, it's the revolutionary changes made by the competition that were so much better, and have raised the bar significantly in this class.
The Elantra, Focus, and Cruze have come out of nowhere and made this segment hugely competitive again. I just read a review by Car and Driver about the Civic Si, and their comments about the interior were interesting:
The bunk-bed layout for the IP is okay, but the garish LCD gauges are right out of a RadioShack in Akron. The mouse-fur headliner suffers from the mange, and there’s a lumpy, wrinkled collar of felt that surrounds the steering column, shouting to one and all, “Yessir, that’s right, I actually am the cheapest bit of flotsam in the universe!”
The most surprising comment was the next sentence:
Note to Honda: Check out the Ford Focus’s interior.
This comment would've been unfathomable as soon as 5 years ago... Not anymore.
I have a feeling the next Corolla may suffer the same fate as well.
I had a Sonata and a Sephia in the mid-to late-1990's and I'm glad the Honda and Toyota folks are seeing a change in the automotive landscape.
I guess we've come full circle.
The reason we heard so much about how the Civic was the end-all, be-all of cars in this class was because... it was! Compare for example the 1984 Civic S or the 1988 Civic LX or even the 1992 Civic EX to what else was available then. Then IMO, in 1996 the downward spiral started, while other cars got better. In some cases a LOT better.
It's not that the new Civic is a terrible car. It's that it isn't all that much better than, say, a 1988 Civic... while other small cars have overtaken the Civic. And Corolla (even moreso the Corolla).
Acceleration was adequate for an economy car. Low-end torque is good, but it takes a firm press on the gas pedal to get the car moving at speed. Personally I don't need anything quicker than the Cruze. Fuel economy is more important to me.
Which brings me to the one real negative thing about the car: secondary controls, specifically the trip computer. I sat in the rental car lot for 5 minutes trying to find the control to switch the multi-function display. Nowhere to be found. No owner's manual in the glove box, either. So I couldn't use the trip computer. Most cars have an obvious button, sometimes on the steering wheel, to control the trip computer.
The cloth driver's seat was very comfortable, and snug but in a good way. I adjusted it so the forward tilt adjustment was at the top, then adjusted the rear tilt for best thigh support. I love the dual height adjusters! At that height, I could move the driver's seat forward enough so there was adequate leg room in back. And with the seat that high, there was plenty of toe space under the driver's seat. The back seat cushion had good thigh support and I think would be fine for kids and average-height adults, as long as the front seat occupants aren't tall (I'm 5'10").
The car handled pretty well and felt nimble, but I noticed the steering felt dead on-center at speed. But the car tracked straight enough. The highway ride was smooth for a small car.
The trunk was roomy, with traditional hinges, but was oddly shaped in that there's a big cutout in the center of the floor. It was nice for small cargo, but I'd rather have a flat load floor with a covered bin. Actually, I'd rather have a spare tire (optional on the Cruze).
One little annoyance was the low, protruding air dam in front. I'm sure it's great for fuel economy, but it was hard not to scrape it when parking.
Now that I've figured out how to adjust the driver's seat for decent room in back, the Cruze will be on my shopping list for my next car. I'll have to try the 6MT though, including the Eco.
She does not to drive larger vehicles so mid-sizers and up are out.
Based on test-sits at the past 2 Chicago Auto Shows we came up with a short list: Cruze, new Elantra, Sentra, new Focus, and Forte with the Tucson & Outlander Sport being possible CUVs. The Focus wasn't available to sit in at the time but we still wanted to consider it.
She has now test-driven the Cruze, Outlander Sport, Tucson, and a used '11 Elantra (no '12s, indeed no new Elantras in stock). The 2 CUVs were eliminated as to get equipment she wanted they got to be too pricey. And as much of a Mitsu fan that I am, we agreed that the 2.0L/CVT combo in the Sport just doesn't do it. Too buzzy under acceleration and she didn't like the CVT trait of adjusting engine revs v. shifting. On the Tucson the ride felt very strange on my lower back - firm & bouncy I expect but the impact was felt almost entirely in my lower back so I suspect there may be a seat design issue for some people.
My wife gets cold easily and it really hits her hard, so heated seats are a priority. Cloth/leather doesn't matter; just heat. And after almost two years with my car, the availability of navi & a rear camera would be nice though not must-haves. Beyond that are typical concerns: safety, fuel economy, price, etc.
So a Cruze has to be LT2 or LTZ to get seat heaters. We settled on an LTZ with RS package (body kit which we actually like) and the Pioneer speaker upgrade. Ride was very firm, bordering on harsh. The passenger door arm rest seemed oddly high up and intrusive. I didn't think during our drive to try various seat adjustments. Power with the 1.4T was good; it had plenty of pickup. Very quiet cabin; Chevy did an excellent job there. Most controls seemed good; she didn't play with the DIC. Overall we were fairly impressed.
The Elantra, though, seemed to just fit her like a glove. The seat was comfortable right away, the ride was firm without being harsh. Power from the DI 1.8 seemed just as good as the Cruze and the Elantra doesn't recommend premium fuel. Visibility is good though the hood slopes down so much it isn't immediately obvious there's anything in front of the windshield; judging where the front of the car is would take getting used to. What we drive was a GLS but we did play with the navi in the Tucson so we saw how it worked. Though the dealer didn't have any new '12s in stock, we did find a Limited with navi/rear-view cam and a few other things in her second-choice color in their upcoming allocation. Temptation ran high but we still walked out without a commitment.
Based on the drives and on some further research we did a paper (computer) elimination of the others. Forte only offers heated seats in the SX. That trim comes with a 2.4L engine, which offers power my wife doesn't want/need and penalizes you significantly at the pump. Focus, if you can manage Ford's lousy online build tool, gets to be expensive when optioned even close to the same as Cruze/Elantra. And fuel economy is still a little behind. Sentra was a close call but in the end it still fell behind. Plus, it's starting to be a dated platform among the compact competition.
So we've come to the realization that the best car to replace her Elantra is the Elantra. We'll probably pull the trigger later today.
Other comments:
- We'll finance through our bank, who offers 2.84% on 60 month loans; cheaper than the 3.9% the automakers seem stuck on.
- Other cars I didn't mention - Civic, Corolla, Mazda 3, Suzuki, Lancer, etc. - Were all eliminated based on various things. Mostly reviewed at the auto show, price, driver seat comfort/position, visibility, crash test results, style were all factors.
- Even with GM Supplier Discount (which is more or less the best we're going to get on the Cruze), the Elantra with a small negotiated discount still presented a better value. Same or better features for about a grand less.
- We're disappointed that Hyundai has pulled owner loyalty cash for their hot sellers.
- Everything we drove had decent head room and enough seat adjustments & front seat travel that comfortable driving positions were possible. Rear seat leg room was deemed adequate or better in all of them. Cargo capacity is what you expect; the small trunk openings on the sedans will make loading/unloading deep into the trunk more of an effort but trunk space itself is good.
The Sandman
2023 Hyundai Kona Limited AWD (wife) / 2015 Golf TSI (me) / 2019 Chevrolet Cruze Premier RS (daughter #1) / 2020 Hyundai Accent SE (daughter #2) / 2023 Subaru Impreza Base (son)
Anyway, the basics on the Impreza don't look bad but it won't be out in time for her to consider this round. Maybe in 8 or 10 years when she next buys.
A loaded Impreza will easily fit under $24k. But it looks like your wife is set on the Elantra. Having owned Elantras for 11 years, including a 2001 GLS I bought new for $11,700 + T&L and a 2004 GT, loaded for $13.2k + T&L, I never thought I'd see the day when "Elantra" and "$24k" were said in the same sentence, with a straight face. OK, maybe I did but not this soon.
According to Edmunds, the Impreza Limited starts at $22,345 and you can "Expect to pay a $5,000 premium if you want that top-of-the-line 2012 Impreza." I'll take that to mean that sub-$24K it's nicely equipped but not loaded. Which might be enough for her equipment-wise but if the Elantra offers more for the same or less $, then it still wins that comparison. I also don't know how she'd react to the CVT as she didn't like the way the engine revved in the CVT-equipped Outlander Sport. CVTs feel disassociated with acceleration and she disliked that.
As to Elantra pricing and compact pricing in general, I agree it seems the category is getting pricey. I understand the cars are better and have more equipment but the car makers are in danger of pricing themselves out of the market if things continue at this pace. I don't think wages are keeping pace with the rate of price increases.
Wow that's a long list.
My sincere recommendation would be to consider a CPO or couple of year old higher trim car. This will get you better features, better safety equipment, and overall a better built car. IE - get a Corolla versus the Sentra. Or a Civic versus the Fit.
The Cruze, being a mid-size sedan is actually already in that segment, so a 1 year old Cruze would save you a ton of money. Yaris priced and without a doubt better than that tin can in every way.
Other cars to consider, of course, are almost anything in the midsize category, including a few luxury models.
My top pick? The Lexus IS300, was essentially a luxury spec RWD car based off of the Corolla platform. You can get a mint condition one for not a lot of money and it'll out-everything any of these budget rides. Plus, it's super reliable. Late 90s BMW 3 series performance for pocket change. A real hidden gem that's off of almost everyone's radar.
A 2005 IS300 can be had for about 12-16K, which is budget car range. Me? I'd buy one of these and laugh like an evil overlord at the chumps who are buying new cars that are half as good for the same money.
If MPG is everything, then you would do well with most of the high-mpg cars like the Accord with the 4 cylinder engine (manual is a must - it's video game easy to drive manual in this car, BTW). A 3-4 year old Accord like this will still be a better car to drive than a new Fit, simply because it is a more solid car to begin with.
Let someone else eat the depreciation (it's good to be greedy and pinch pennies these days :P ). Any car these days will last 150-200K miles with proper care, so a car with 20-50K on it, used, is hardly worth worrying over.
Why would anyone want to get that POS car vs. the Sentra, which is roomier, has a much nicer interior, more comfortable driving position, and can be had for a good discount as a new car?
I get to drive many Corollas as rentals (unfortunately) and lease a 2010 Sentra, and also drive those a lot as rentals. I think the Sentra is a much better car overall than the Corolla. Whenever a Corolla is pushed on me at the rental lot, I try to change it for something else... almost anything else except a Yaris or Matrix. I'd rather not rent a Sentra because I drive that at home, but I don't mind it if that's all they have. When I rent cars I like to drive cars I haven't driven before when possible. Like the Cruze I got to drive last week. I also got good time behind the wheel in Mazda3's, Elantras, and the new Jetta among the latest compact designs. Would love to rent a new Focus and Civic but haven't seen those on the lots yet (I have to use Hertz or National mainly).
P.S. The Cruze is a compact. The Accord however is a mid-sized car, so really not pertinent to this discussion.
So she'll need a new compact or sub-compact car for her next ride. And I've got a feeling that around $22k will be her upper limit, so that narrows the list down quite a bit I'd say. From her talking about it, she really seems to want a smaller car like the Accent or Rio size. I personally think a compact would suit her better but it's her choice. I like the looks of the Fiesta myself but from the pics I've seen, not to many little bins to put things in the dash like our current cars and she likes that feature. The Focus might have more, we just haven't checked that yet. And we've never had a Ford in our 30 year marriage yet, so a 2013 model might be doable. Have seen a few of both the Fiesta & Focus on the roads and they look pretty nice on the outside. And there's a Ford dealer not to far away.
Since we're just starting our search, is it better to call the internet person 1st to meet him so if we do decide on a Ford, we could go through him or is it best to just walk in and let a regular salesman take the lead. We've bought the last 4 cars by going through the internet person all with good results.
T I A for any help folks.
The Sandman
2023 Hyundai Kona Limited AWD (wife) / 2015 Golf TSI (me) / 2019 Chevrolet Cruze Premier RS (daughter #1) / 2020 Hyundai Accent SE (daughter #2) / 2023 Subaru Impreza Base (son)
And, as I pointed out, a you can get car with a much better original price range. ie - if your budget is 20K or so, you can even be looking at 1 or 2 year old Accords and so on. I've even seen 2 year old TSXs going for around 22K. Since most cars depreciate 30-40% in the first two years, that means a 30K car for 22K or so. Still has a warranty, still smells pretty new, and often you can find one with 10 or 20K on it - barely broken in. And if we're talking domestics, well, it's pretty much anything you want. I've even see CPO Cadillacs going for 22K or so.
If it HAS to be new, though, there is only one choice - get a Mustang. 300HP, 30mpg highway, and 22K before year-end rebates. Truecar.com has a 2011 Mustang for $20,650. It's without a doubt my top pick for around 20K. Add a couple of basic options and it's way more fun than any economy car.
P.S. The Cruze is classified by the EPA as midsize. GM just chooses to lie in its marketing and say that it's a compact.
Also, I obviously meant to get the Corolla instead of the Yaris. You never want to buy any maker's absolute bottom model as they cut corners that really shouldn't be cut and leave out things that you want like garage door openers, keyless entry, power seats, side airbags, and so on.
This may have been true 3-4 years ago but not now. You really need to get out more or at least read more. Many used cars, especially CPOs, are selling for as much or more than the same car brand new. Used cars in general are hot commidities and are in short supply. Used cars rotting on lots is just not the case and that has raised prices on both used car and trade-ins. There has been many news articles and magazine items discussing this. Used car prices for the same car (but a year older) are actually up versus what they sold a year ago.
I'm not saying that it isn't possible to find a deal on a CPO but it isn't easy right now. Besides, you are looking at it from a strictly financial point of view. Many people only buy a car after many years and just want a new car. It's nice to try and "educate" people but you assume they don't know that a car already suffering a huge chunk of depreciation is fiscally frugal. I think most people do know this but are willing to drop the coin to get something brand new. I bought used cars for years but for the last twenty or so have bought nothing but new vehicles. Would I have $40-50k more cash now if I had continued to buy used cars all those years? Most certainly but money isn't everything and if enough people followed your advice there would be no CPO cars because the car companies would be out of business.
I just ask that you quit trying to make anyone that buys a new car sound naive or wasteful. The vast majority are neither. They just have different priorities than you.
If you can get a car with 20K on it for 5K less, and the car in question is known to be good for 200K+ miles, sacrificing 10% of its life for a 25% reduction in price is a complete no-brainer.
It's all about quality. Many CPO cars are so close to new that you can't hardly tell that they've ever been owned before. This also includes dealer and program cars, which are basically "new" but with 2-5K on them. These can also save you a ton of money. Of course, the best deals are domestics, naturally.
But Plekto, I understand exactly what you are saying and have done that in the past and might do it again in the future. But this world has so many people with different opinions on everything, as I'm sure many households go through the same dilemma about new vs. used. I wish everyone luck with whatever they purchase. I just know one thing, there will be a new car on her side of the garage within the next 12 months!
The Sandman
2023 Hyundai Kona Limited AWD (wife) / 2015 Golf TSI (me) / 2019 Chevrolet Cruze Premier RS (daughter #1) / 2020 Hyundai Accent SE (daughter #2) / 2023 Subaru Impreza Base (son)
- Safety: New cars are the most likely to have the best safety ratings and most modern safety equipment. Better safety may net you cheaper insurance premiums.
- Reduced operating costs: Newer cars are sporting longer maintenance intervals and better fuel economy, both of which can mean buying a new car costs less over the ownership period even if the car costs more initially.
- Availability of specific features. Example: Now that using a phone is only legal if using a hands-free system, BlueTooth support is mandatory for people who for whatever reason use a phone while driving. BT has been available for years but it's only now starting to actually be a standard feature v. a semi-expensive add-on (which makes it harder to find in a used car).
- Better finance rates: With few exceptions, if you finance your car like most folks do you'll find cheaper interest rates on new cars.
Besides, new car depreciation isn't what it was five years ago. Right now I see a nearby dealer has a 2011 Elantra Limited with over 23K miles for $21,995. Let's assume we can talk the dealer down to $21K even. Compare that to my wife's $23.3K negotiated price for a '12 Elantra with navi/camera, sunroof, and every other option & accessory except HomeLink. For the $2300 difference she'd get navi, a rear camera, a sunroof, the entire factory warranty, and a car that no one else has driven. And the understanding that if she were to drive 20K miles in the first year it'll probably lose only around 10% of it's value.
Being in the business, I can promise you that this statement could not be further from the truth. Pre-owned cars are at an all-time high. Auction prices are almost near retail. Manufacturers are up charging for lease returns, in many cases several thousand over the residual buyout that a customer can pay, if they wanted to buy out their lease.
Now is a terrible time to buy a used car, from a financial perspective.
But this aside, if it has to be a new car, the most car for the money currently, in your price range is the new V6 Mustang.
Is this a compact sedan? You are consistently talking about cars other than what the discussion is about.
Used CPOs are selling for very close to new car prices and all cars are selling at discounts from "asking price".....old and new. It just so happens that at this point in time new cars are the better deal. It's all over the press and internet...not hard to find if one only looks.
MODERATOR /ADMINISTRATOR
Find me at kirstie_h@edmunds.com - or send a private message by clicking on my name.
2015 Kia Soul, 2021 Subaru Forester (kirstie_h), 2024 GMC Sierra 1500 (mr. kirstie_h)
Review your vehicle
Here is the thing about "listing prices". Many dealers nation wide have adopted the philosophy of advertising a car at a specific price, however, that may be the prices after a $2,000 down payment and the customer MUST finance with the dealer. This is common practice in the NY/NY area. It's rather quite disgusting.
I attend Manheim auctions on a nationwide scale, and every brand is selling for thousands over wholesale value, and almost near retail.
The Sandman
2023 Hyundai Kona Limited AWD (wife) / 2015 Golf TSI (me) / 2019 Chevrolet Cruze Premier RS (daughter #1) / 2020 Hyundai Accent SE (daughter #2) / 2023 Subaru Impreza Base (son)
Yes, it really IS a sub-compact car.
http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/2008car1tablef.jsp?id=31162
The other car to consider is obviously the Cruze.
http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/2008car1tablef.jsp?id=31377
This model requires you to get it with manual, but it's basically getting Yaris MPG or close to it. Yes, note the "midsize" rating. GM is getting good lately at shrinking the exteriors of their vehicles to make a midsize sedan look like a size smaller one.