Edmunds Members - Cars and Conversations (Archived)

PF_Flyer

Might be an interesting survey. What percentage of your vehicle is "appliance" vs "automotive enjoyment"?

If there was a Lamborghini in the driveway, that would be 100% to just drive, for example.

So, without getting into brands, how do your vehicles fall on the scale?

I like my manual tranny and like driving, but I think I'm looking at 75% appliance. Maybe...

[Deleted User]

Michaell said:

Snow - growing up in Southiern California, that's what folks would put up their nose. Skiing - snow, gravity and trees do not make a good combination. Ask Sonny Bono. And one of the Kennedys. Lived in CO 22 years now and the only time I've been to the slopes is to take my son snowboarding. I stayed at the bottom of the hill the entire day.

I've been skiing since early childhood.  Over 20 broken bones, 8 or so surgeries, and more time on crutches than I can remember.  And not a single serious injury while skiing, thankfully.  I love skiing fresh snow glades hidden among the trees in particular.  My helmet and goggles do take some abuse and just last year I would have lost an eye if not for the protection.  Balancing adrenalin with rational thought is key.

snakeweasel

suydam said:

snakeweasel said:

suydam said:

Lotta people in car accidents. Some pretty serious. Does that mean we shouldn't drive?

The thing is most people who drive do it mostly because it's a mode of transportation to get them from point 'A' to point 'B' and back again. This might be for things such as work, doctors appointments, seeing family and the like.

Not this group!

What? Is this group full of people who ski to work?

ab348

PF_Flyer said:

Might be an interesting survey. What percentage of your vehicle is "appliance" vs "automotive enjoyment"?

If there was a Lamborghini in the driveway, that would be 100% to just drive, for example.

So, without getting into brands, how do your vehicles fall on the scale?

I like my manual tranny and like driving, but I think I'm looking at 75% appliance. Maybe...

I would slot my ATS at somewhere around 70%. So much fun to drive...

nyccarguy

Good question @PF_Flyer - My Legacy is definitely about 95% appliance.  That doesn't necessarily mean it is a boring car, but with a 175 horsepower 4cyl boxer 4 engine mated to a CVT (which I like BTW) it doesn't exactly evoke passion either.  The Legacy is my commuting sled.  Monday through Saturday, 63 miles round trip, 50 weeks per year.  Power output is adequate.  Mileage is decent (26 mpg overall).  Range with the 18.5 gallon tank is fantastic.  

When is it fun?  Mornings of snow storms.  I usually leave before they plow the secondary roads.  The AWD system is magical.  

driver100

Actually, the A4 was the most fun to drive car we have had.......not a lot of power though. Great steering and handling and shifting was a blast until the clutch went. FUN - 85%

The E400 has great handling too, gets you there in comfort and is so well designed. Fun value, about 75%. Overall for good design, comfort, driving pleasure - 90%.

The GLK has the same engine. Not quite as comfort and some fun factor is lost on the fact it is an SUV. Fun - 68%

Passat Nice shifting and comfort for shorter runs. Gear shifting is fun, though loses a few points as a 5 speed, not a 6 speed. Loses more points because it needs more power Fun.....65%

stickguy

Not much fun in the Sonata. But a really nice appliance! respectable to drive though.

the RDX, that gets more fun factor because it is pretty darned quick.

berri

Now as I remember back to school days, you just gave out 1-B, 1-C and 2-D's

verdugo

imidazol97 said:

Then we picked up a car for him for his senior year, but it was a pedantic vehicle, not high-powered show off car.

What is a pedantic vehicle? Did it say with a British accent "Surely, you won't dream of putting non Tier 1 gasoline in my tank, old chap"?

roadburner

1995 318ti Club Sport: 99% fun
2007 Mazdaspeed 3: 80% fun
1999 Wrangler Sahara: 60% fun
1996 Speed Triple: 100% fun

stever

Some appliances can be fun - how else are you going to make a margarita?

tjc78

2015 Enclave - 0% fun
2004 Grand Marquis - 100% fun when you attempt to drive it as a BMW 25% other times.

imidazol97

verdugo said:

it was a pedantic vehicle, not high-powered show off car.

What is a pedantic vehicle? Did it say with a British accent "Surely, you won't dream of putting non Tier 1 gasoline in my tank, old chap"?

No it wasn't a British vehicle. LOL. OnStar didn't answer with an accent either.

While other students in the parking lot at our fairly large high school had varied cars from new and old BMWs, a Corvette or two, lots of Nissan Q vehicles a few years old, many SUVs from Tahoes to Pilots, many used Hondas with and without the bad mufflers that plague that brand, many Chrysler products from Neons to midsizers, and a high, high percentage of pickup trucks both recent and aged models and while many vehicles had things on them to make the stand out, son was driving a Cobalt in black that looked brand new but was a 4-door instead of the sportier coupe. The only stylish thing about it was it had the RS "driving" lights a the bottom of the front.

During his junior year nobody hit the leSabre 1998 in the parking lot. After driving the Cobalt for band practices through the summer and into the fall, the Cobalt was lightly sideswiped on the plastic lower rear panel and the arch in front of the rear tire by an Explorer driven by a petite young lady who was part of the Guard group of the band parking making a wide sweeping turn. She didn't realize she brushed it with the right front rubber bumper cover. Son didn't notice it when he left. I saw it when parked at home. He recalled who was parked next to him that day. Called mother, whom we knew from band, at home. She looked at front bumper and asked the daughter about the scrape in the clearcoat on the bumper.

Don't buy an expensive car for high school parking lots (nor for tight apartment lots at private apartment buildings at urban universities like OSU). Go Bucks (and Bengals).

nyccarguy

Prelude is 90% fun.  Too many cars on the road plus low speed limits here make it 10% appluance.

PF_Flyer

I even try to have fun when using it as an appliance like going to the grocery store, which is why my rating is sort of fluid. Even on the short 7-8 mile trip into town there are a couple of spots on the road that are just fun to drive on... in ANY car

28firefighter

My wife is a buckeye (alum). O-H!

suydam

I-O!

iluvmysephia1

I'd give my '11 Kia Soul clear white base 5-speed about 80% fun. Dodge City's streets are...umm...kind of bumpy. They used a lot of brick in making the streets from downtown up north. Some of the bricks seem to come out and have happy dances when the Soul is mashing through them.

They say the '16 Scion iA makes less of staccato-type bumps like that than it makes more of them.

imidazol97

suydam said:

I-O!

X2 !!!

stever

Only 80%? Those bricks (and cobbles) are nice to look at but even chip seal is a pain to drive on.

Had fun hauling an olive tree a couple of nights ago for a friend. Fork lift slid it into the van, was able to get it out by sliding it down a setion of ladder. 'Bout 4x4', dunno, 50 gallon size? The van is definitely an appliance.

graphicguy

OldFarmer...a lot of this was communicated from the BBB and then to GM. So, even though BBB said all terms were accepted, I still haven't seen what GM "Thinks" those terms are. That's why I can't understand BBB's purpose. I've only been dealing directly with Cadillac Corporate (and ultimately, GM) for the last several weeks. Until I see their letter, I really don't know for certain what the actual deal is. So yeah.....not smelling good, but I'll reserve judgement until I get their offer in writing and it's acceptable.

Snake....thanks for explaining what the accounting looks like on this. I suspect that once I give them the old CTS back, all warranties on it (at least warranties by Cadillac) are null and void. So, maybe there are no chargebacks on the losses (if any) incurred on the car? Not sure.

But, given that their agreement, like for like, regardless of purchase price, the delta is pretty big between the '14 and '16 CTS. I bought the '14 for around $43K plus a bit.

Looking at the '16, again same options, I come up with much more. In round numbers....

MSRP-$64K
Invoice-$60K
Holdback-($2K)
Current incentives-($2K)
Previous owner credit-($2K)

I come up with a value on the '16 CTS at $54K. That's a pretty big $10K+ delta between what I paid for the '14 and what the '16 would cost, at least on paper.

Finacially, I would think it would make more sense for them to just give me my money back that I paid for it, and take the '14 off my hands and sell it on the open market....maybe auction it. That's probably what they're going to do anyway. Are margins so big on the CTS that GM still makes money on this deal?

abacomike

nyccarguy said:

Prelude is 90% fun.  Too many cars on the road plus low speed limits here make it 10% appluance.

My wife, when she was alive, loved her red Prelude.  It was just the right size for her and more than fast enough.  Sometimes I wonder who she loved more - me or her red Prelude!  

carnaught

GG, they asked for a VIN for the '16 that you wanted to negotiate on. This, plus making the deal more of a "trade" means they won't have to sell your '14 as a buy-back. They could legitimately call it a traded car.

PF_Flyer

One of my "fun" spots to drive. It's a 45 mph speed limit, but it IS a bit of fun to "test the S" when you go through. I knew Google's street view had a fun use

nyccarguy

I would think it is easier for them to swap cars out than to write you a check for $45K plus tax

andres3

graphicguy said:

While I was at the dealership yesterday to pick up my loaner car, they had this sitting in the showroom. The pictures really don't do it justice.....

http://www.jeffwylerfairfieldgm.com/VehicleDetails/new-2016-Cadillac-ATS_V_Coupe-ATS_V_Coupe-Fairfield-OH/2642876893

For that price, I could have not 1, but 2 Golf R's. Use one as a parts bin for those who think VW has suspect reliability. Heck, wouldn't be a bad idea to have two new Cadillac's for the same purpose, although it seems your CTS was unfix-able.

andres3

abacomike said:

My sincerest sympathy to you Met Fans - they had a great post season in spite of losing the World Series. I can empathize with you guys - I've been a Chicago Cub Fan (Diehard Cub Fan Club) since 1968 so I know the pain, to be sure. I wonder if I will live to see that day the Cubs get to play in the World Series? Nah, never happen. And I am not asking for much - just "play" in the World Series - they don't have to win it! The years are gaining on me so they better work fast if I will live to see "the day"!

I remember the '89 SF Giants beat the Cubs to face the unstoppable Oakland A's in the World Series. Didn't matter who made it to the World Series, that sweep was a virtual guarantee by the A's and many people bet a sweep before the Series even started. So SF topped the Cubs, and the A's didn't really have a competitor in the NL that year.

graphicguy

carnaught said:

GG, they asked for a VIN for the '16 that you wanted to negotiate on. This, plus making the deal more of a "trade" means they won't have to sell your '14 as a buy-back. They could legitimately call it a traded car.

Never thought of it that way. If my '14 CTS ends up on some lot somewhere, asking for the Carfax isn't going to help any dealer sell it.

andres....usually, I don't like flat (vs shiny) paint on cars. On that ATS-V, it was incredible looking, though.

andres3

driver100 said:

abacomike said:

According to Fox News Channel:

VW announced that it found an "internal problem" affecting 800,000 additional vehicles for excess carbon dioxide emissions but did not indicate which vehicles were affected.  I would think these vehicles are gasoline powered since it is CO2 emissions that are involved.

Further, VW stated it would cost 2 billion dollars to correct the problem.  I am starting to wonder what the next surprise announcement is going to involve.  Not good for VW - it keeps getting worse!  

This is hitting closer to home, so I checked and the Passat has a 2.5 litre engine. The 1.4 l is in very small models;

Tuesday’s findings over carbon dioxide emissions, and petrol-fuelled cars, are understood to involve smaller 1.4-litre engines, mostly in the VW Polo and Golf, as well some Seat and Skoda cars, and the Audi A1 and A3.

A change in the CO2 emissions of the vehicles would also affect their fuel economy, VW admitted. "It was established that the CO2 levels and thus the fuel consumption figures for some models were set too low during the CO2 certification process," the company said.

The company said it would “endeavour to clarify the further course of action as quickly as possible and ensure the correct CO2 classification for the vehicles affected” with the responsible authorities.

And, of course, the usuall blah blah blah,

“The board of management of Volkswagen deeply regrets this situation and wishes to underscore its determination to systematically continue along the present path of clarification and transparency,” it added.

Why don't they just say we got caught cheating our customers!

Unless a customer considered emissions in the purchase of their vehicle, I don't see the customer being cheated.

imidazol97

andres3 said:

Unless a customer considered emissions in the purchase of their vehicle, I don't see the customer being cheated.

Sounds like they will have to adjust the software to get the CO2 levels down to where they alleged they
were in the earlier certification documents. That affects customers.

"A change in the CO2 emissions of the vehicles would also affect their fuel economy, VW admitted. "It was established that the CO2 levels and thus the fuel consumption figures for some models were set too low during the CO2 certification process," the company said.

"The company said it would “endeavour to clarify the further course of action as quickly as possible and ensure the correct CO2 classification for the vehicles affected” with the responsible authorities."

abacomike

andres3 said:

According to Fox News Channel:

VW announced that it found an "internal problem" affecting 800,000 additional vehicles for excess carbon dioxide emissions but did not indicate which vehicles were affected.  I would think these vehicles are gasoline powered since it is CO2 emissions that are involved.

Further, VW stated it would cost 2 billion dollars to correct the problem.  I am starting to wonder what the next surprise announcement is going to involve.  Not good for VW - it keeps getting worse!  

This is hitting closer to home, so I checked and the Passat has a 2.5 litre engine. The 1.4 l is in very small models; Tuesday’s findings over carbon dioxide emissions, and petrol-fuelled cars, are understood to involve smaller 1.4-litre engines, mostly in the VW Polo and Golf, as well some Seat and Skoda cars, and the Audi A1 and A3. A change in the CO2 emissions of the vehicles would also affect their fuel economy, VW admitted. "It was established that the CO2 levels and thus the fuel consumption figures for some models were set too low during the CO2 certification process," the company said. The company said it would “endeavour to clarify the further course of action as quickly as possible and ensure the correct CO2 classification for the vehicles affected” with the responsible authorities. And, of course, the usuall blah blah blah, “The board of management of Volkswagen deeply regrets this situation and wishes to underscore its determination to systematically continue along the present path of clarification and transparency,” it added. Why don't they just say we got caught cheating our customers!

Unless a customer considered emissions in the purchase of their vehicle, I don't see the customer being cheated.

I know I'm going to regret responding to this post, but as I have said before, "...sometimes you just gotta do what ya gotta do...!
 
Andres, when you make statements like, "...Unless a customer considered emissions in the purchase of their vehicle, I don't see the customer being cheated...", do you ever look carefully or reread your statement before posting it?  Only someone who has only one way of looking at things or is short-sighted would make a comment like that!

Think about this for awhile:

I buy a Mercedes-Benz because of the luxury, handling, technology and comfort.  I then find out that my fuel economy is 25% worse than the EPA estimate because Mercedes-Benz purposely under-reported CO2 emissions by 30%.  Would I feel cheated even though I did not buy the Mercedes-Benz for reasons of fuel economy or emissions?  You're "darn" right I would feel I was cheated!

I buy a new refrigerator for more interior space for food and the convenience of a side-by-side format so I don't have to bend to see what's in the freezer.  I find out a month later that my electric bill is 18% higher than in previous months.  The only change in use is the new refrigerator.  I check the label and it has an energy saver rating of 87.  I call the manufacturer and find out the refrigerator I bought actually has a rating of 53, but the labels were misprinted.  Do I feel cheated even though I did not buy the appliance for the energy savings I would experience?  You're " darn" right I would feel cheated!

Are you starting to understand why your statement is thoughtless and short-sighted?

If you don't see that, then all is lost by my "teaching lesson" for the day!  

carnaught

Mike, although I do not disagree with you, your remarks to Andres have a bit of a "sharp" tone to them.

carnaught

graphicguy said:

carnaught said:

GG, they asked for a VIN for the '16 that you wanted to negotiate on. This, plus making the deal more of a "trade" means they won't have to sell your '14 as a buy-back. They could legitimately call it a traded car.

Never thought of it that way. If my '14 CTS ends up on some lot somewhere, asking for the Carfax isn't going to help any dealer sell it.

I believe there are ways to keep some information out of a CarFax report .

abacomike

carnaught said:

Mike, although I do not disagree with you, your remarks to Andres have a bit of a "sharp" tone to them.

Hmmm, yes I think you are correct.  My comments do have a bit of a sharp tone to them.

explorerx4

My Fusion had 1 fender bender. I did an Autocheck and a Carfax and between the 2 of them got a pretty complete picture.

oldfarmer50

explorerx4 said:

My Fusion had 1 fender bender. I did an Autocheck and a Carfax and between the 2 of them got a pretty complete picture.

Which one gave the better picture by itself?

explorerx4

@oldfarmer50,
Autocheck had the accident and a few other entries, maybe 6 total. Carfax had everything except the accident, around 16 to 18.

andres3

imidazol97 said:

andres3 said:

Unless a customer considered emissions in the purchase of their vehicle, I don't see the customer being cheated.

Sounds like they will have to adjust the software to get the CO2 levels down to where they alleged they
were in the earlier certification documents. That affects customers.

"A change in the CO2 emissions of the vehicles would also affect their fuel economy, VW admitted. "It was established that the CO2 levels and thus the fuel consumption figures for some models were set too low during the CO2 certification process," the company said.

"The company said it would “endeavour to clarify the further course of action as quickly as possible and ensure the correct CO2 classification for the vehicles affected” with the responsible authorities."

So the solution is don't alter the vehicles, and just pay the fine.

explorerx4

@imidazol97,
I don't see the EPA letting these cars live as 'Gross Polluters'. Opens them up to lawsuits from people that had their cars confiscated/destroyed for the same reason. Another possible problem is that if the cars run legal all the time, the rest of the exhaust system may not be able to handle it. Could have been designed to only operate with 'cheater system' use on a regular basis and thus designed to a cheaper level.
That is just speculation on my part.

cdnpinhead

carnaught said:

Mike, although I do not disagree with you, your remarks to Andres have a bit of a "sharp" tone to them.

Speaking of which, has anyone heard from Richard lately?

imidazol97

cdnpinhead said:

Speaking of which, has anyone heard from Richard lately?

It's been quite a while since I got an individual email from him. That was after the accident. But I get interesting emails that he forwards.

oldfarmer50

explorerx4 said:

@oldfarmer50,
Autocheck had the accident and a few other entries, maybe 6 total. Carfax had everything except the accident, around 16 to 18.

Carfax always annoyed me with their nebulous terms like "fleet" vehicle. What fleet? And "accident" could mean scratched bumper or total wreck.

verdugo

carnaught said:

Mike, although I do not disagree with you, your remarks to Andres have a bit of a "sharp" tone to them.

Actually, I was about to write that it's obvious that Mike was an awesome educator.

jwilliams2

Actually, I was about to write that it's obvious that Mike was an awesome educator.


I agree. The response was well reasoned and spot on.

abacomike

verdugo said:

Mike, although I do not disagree with you, your remarks to Andres have a bit of a "sharp" tone to them.

Actually, I was about to write that it's obvious that Mike was an awesome educator.

Thanks Verdugo.  Sometimes it is necessary to cite several examples of why someone's statement of opinion is not well thought out.  In this case, the poster's opinion did not make sense to me.  I had hoped that by responding as I did would bring to light in the poster's realm of rational reasoning why the comment and opinion that spawned that comment was incorrect.

I appreciate your kindness.  

abacomike

jwilliams2 said:

Actually, I was about to write that it's obvious that Mike was an awesome educator.

I agree. The response was well reasoned and spot on.

Thanks, jwilliams!  

dino001

andres3 said:

Unless a customer considered emissions in the purchase of their vehicle, I don't see the customer being cheated.

I have to disagree. Anytime, any false statement is deliberately advanced as a part of a contract by one party, it is a deceiptful breach, regardless of original motives of the ocher party. A label stating so-and-so on a product is such, period.

If somebody sells me bologna as ham, pricing it as ham, they cheated, regardless whether I may actually like that bologna even more than ham. I was buying and paying for ham.

oldfarmer50

explorerx4 said:

@imidazol97,
I don't see the EPA letting these cars live as 'Gross Polluters'. Opens them up to lawsuits from people that had their cars confiscated/destroyed for the same reason. Another possible problem is that if the cars run legal all the time, the rest of the exhaust system may not be able to handle it. Could have been designed to only operate with 'cheater system' use on a regular basis and thus designed to a cheaper level.
That is just speculation on my part.

Curious, I've never heard of cars being confiscated or destroyed for any reason. Could you elaborate on this?

[Deleted User]

oldfarmer50 said:

explorerx4 said:

@imidazol97,
I don't see the EPA letting these cars live as 'Gross Polluters'. Opens them up to lawsuits from people that had their cars confiscated/destroyed for the same reason. Another possible problem is that if the cars run legal all the time, the rest of the exhaust system may not be able to handle it. Could have been designed to only operate with 'cheater system' use on a regular basis and thus designed to a cheaper level.
That is just speculation on my part.

Curious, I've never heard of cars being confiscated or destroyed for any reason. Could you elaborate on this?

The only examples I'm aware of were the GM EV1 electric car confiscation by the company, and some vehicles illegally imported into the US and later confiscated by the government. Pretty rare and different circumstances. There may be other examples but I don't recall any. I think a massive fine is the most likely scenario, which really won't do anything to correct the pollution.

If the true reason behind the regulations is to improve overall air quality, then I believe we have additional options to accomplish the same goal concerning the VW polluters. VW could compensate for the additional air pollution by building solar energy farms.

js06gv

Unsolicited rant re OE tires - they stink! I'm convinced that vehicle manufacturers just get the rejects from the tire manufacturers for their new vehicles. They don't come with their own mileage warranty, even when replacement tires of the exact same brand and specs do. Those replacements will usually go about double the mileage too. Guess I'm just burned up that I had to put a replacement set on my daughter's Optima yesterday at 21K, and that I had to spend $ on a leased car that will go back in 15K miles. The particular brand that came on this car (Nexen) probably didn't help. Had never heard of it before; appears to be a cheap Korean brand.