Are you currently struggling to find an affordable car that you want? A reporter would like to talk to you about your experience with car shopping; please reach out to [email protected] for more information.

Low End Sedans (under $16k)

16971737475

Comments

  • backybacky Twin CitiesMember Posts: 18,946
    Pre-release vehicles don't usually have window stickers with pricing.

    There was incredible interest in the spy photos for the '07 Elantra. Maybe because Hyundai did such a good job of shielding the car from the public eye, and decent spy photos emerged only shortly before the car's formal introduction. Honda is perhaps best at hiding cars until they are introduced. They kept the North American Fit watchers guessing for a long time, even though the car has been around awhile elsewhere. The Rabbit's looks were no mystery, since the design has been available in Europe for a long time.

    Ok, let's not talk about the Rabbit then. How about that new-for-'07 Aveo sedan? Talk about generating a lot of interest. Not.
  • randydriverrandydriver Member Posts: 262
    oh I quite like the new sedan....
  • joe97joe97 Member Posts: 2,248
    Does every VW enthusiast (as of late) I meet now drive a non-VW car? ;)

    Seriously though, magazines do early reviews on just about every new model, or what can be fitted into their time schedule, and what's available for them. Poor perception/bias on your part because Hyundai's new lineup has generated a lot of interests and buzz.

    Oh by the way, Golf doesn't come in the form of a sedan so in essence it doesn't exactly fall into this discussion called "Low End Sedans"
  • lhansonlhanson Member Posts: 268
    I would think that you of all people would be interested in the new Aveo. After all, it is a cheap Korean made car with a history of poor quality. The only difference is that it will be readily available and sell in large quantities at every Chevrolet dealer in the country, including the ones in Gopher land. Seriously, if they had a 100,000 mile warranty (not much of a gamble for them here since most cars now need little in the way of major repairs between 36000 and 100000 miles anyway, especially if they put in all the Hyundai exclusions) and a few spokespersons like yourself, it would be lights out for the competition.
  • joe97joe97 Member Posts: 2,248
    "I would think that you of all people would be interested in the new Aveo."

    Bad stereotyping. You are assuming people who like Hyundai like Daewoo and are all Koreans. And, let's move away from the igorance.

    Let's have this on record, I am not Korean ;) With that said, I like small cars like the Aveo; one thing I am afraid with the upcoming 07 Chevy/Daewoo Aveo is its safety results. 1 1/2 star in the Euro NACP, I just hope it'd better when tests are performed here.

    As for the warranty item you brought up, warranty costs for Hyundai are way down, contributed mainly by the fact cars built out of the factory floor are better, in every shape or form, including quality and reliablity. Unforuantely, Daewoos are still not up to par with Hyundai, but they have gotten a lot better.
  • lhansonlhanson Member Posts: 268
    Why would anyone assume that someone who likes Korean cars is Korean. Would you assume that anyone who likes Honda or Toyota is Japanese? I don't understand what you mean by "cars built out of the factory floor". How is the Hyundai manufacturing process different from any other car manufacturer. By the way, ignorance is spelled with an "n".
  • joe97joe97 Member Posts: 2,248
    "I would think that you of all people would be interested in the new Aveo. After all, it is a cheap Korean made car with a history of poor quality."

    So your logic being Backy and others would be interested in the new Aveo [because] "it is a cheap Korean made car with a hisotry of poor quality". Correct me if I am mistaken by your logic.

    What do I mean by Hyundai cars from the factory floor are build better? Well, in terms of lower warranty costs, a direct correlation can be drawn for better build qualities and fewer reliability problems [than in the past]. This is supported by the vast improvement Hyundai has achieved, espeically in the areas of quality and reliability.

    And lastly, I typed too fast - forgive me for not doing a spell check :)
  • lhansonlhanson Member Posts: 268
    As late as the 2002 Model year, Consumer Reports shows the Accent has transmission problems much worse than average and worse than average problems in the areas of the drive system, fuel, ignition, and paint/trim. Contrast that with the Echo, Corolla, and Civic which are much above average in all areas and you will see why the resale on the Accent is so low, and why Hyundai really had no choice but to offer the 100,000 mile warranty (60,000 to second owner) to try to remain competitive.
  • joe97joe97 Member Posts: 2,248
    In the same sense, the 10/100K warranty program - one reason Hyundai USA is on the map (but mostly still because Hyundai bulids quality cars now). Sales have grown some 450% or more since the new/bold warranty program started in '98. This year, half a million units are well within reach for the US market.

    Every generation of Accent has improved vastly, as far as I can recall. The 06/7 MY is no exception - on par/better vs. its competitors. The hatchback version, especially the SE trim, has generated a lot of interests.

    Corolla and Civic doesn't compete with Accent; Echo has been discontiuned.
  • germancarfan1germancarfan1 Member Posts: 221
    Everyone knows in the forum board that Hyundai as a company only started in the year 2006. Hyundai never produced cars prior to that.
  • germancarfan1germancarfan1 Member Posts: 221
    "sedan refers to a fixed-roof car with at least four doors or any fixed-roof two-door car with at least 33 cubic feet of rear interior volume, according to measurements based on SAE standard J11OO"
  • joe97joe97 Member Posts: 2,248
    It's a cloud definition, for the most part, because by requirement, a RX-8 can be considered a sedan.

    Personally, I view anything with a lifgate as a hatchback, whether being two-door, or four-door.
  • germancarfan1germancarfan1 Member Posts: 221
    As much as I'm glad about what you think "personally," this forum is entitled under 16K sedans and as such will contain discussions about any "sedan" under 16K.
  • backybacky Twin CitiesMember Posts: 18,946
    I'm not interested in the Aveo because when I drove it last I didn't like it nearly as well as competitors like the Fit and Accent (or Yaris or Rio for that matter). But maybe the '07 will be improved enough for consideration. However, I don't see a reason to take a chance on what is essentially a Daewoo with a Chevy-style warranty (meaning short), when there are several other solid choices in this class to choose from.

    Why do you refer to me as a "spokesperson"? A spokesperson of what? Does the fact that I have owned Hyundais and have said some positive things about them (also many negative things) make me a spokesperson for them? If so, then I guess I am a spokesperson for Hyundai. Also for Mazda, Honda, Toyota, Ford/Mercury, Dodge, Chevy, Mitsubishi, and Nissan.
  • germancarfan1germancarfan1 Member Posts: 221
    I'm curious. Please post what negative things you have said about Hyundai. And provide links to the post #.

    A cursory search of every post you have made dating back to October 2005 yields not a single "negative" post.
  • shado4shado4 Member Posts: 287
    You are right about the 5 speed manual Yaris. I own a hatchback with a 5 speed manual and have seen several base model sedans in the Memphis area (38118) with manual transmissions. What is your zip code?

    This question should actually be directed to inharmsway since he is the one looking for a base Yaris sedan with a manual transmission, not me.

    In fact I am not even considering the Yaris or the Fit for one very important reason (to me, at least): a power sunroof is not available in either car.
  • ross14ross14 Member Posts: 36
    Apparently, South Korea prefers the East Coast, (Before the Midwest?), since we finally got the 2007 Accent hatchback in Queens, NYC. The driver's seat is flawless in support, & the rear seating is spacious. The sticker price (GS):$10495 m.t. Add AC & radio pkg.(1350), & dest. & sticker final cost was $13395. For the "SE": $14915 ( includes AT ) + delivery= $15580. Both cars looked ready to challenge the competition.
  • ross14ross14 Member Posts: 36
    Obviously, every car is built by humans. Someone designs the assembly processes, the robots, etc. The reality check for these humans is "Consumer Reports", & J.D.POwers. Talk all you want. The cars in "RED" are well made, & the cars that get "Black", for years (Decades), SUCK.
  • inharmswayinharmsway Member Posts: 153
    My zip code is 95662. But right now I am leaning more towards a 2006/07 hyundai accent.
  • lhansonlhanson Member Posts: 268
    I went to the Toyota website, used your zip code, and was able to build a car in a hatchback with 5 speed manual transmission with any features I wanted. Several local dealers claimed to have the sedan in stock, although I was not able to come up with a hatchback.
  • backybacky Twin CitiesMember Posts: 18,946
    I'm curious. Please tell me how you went about doing a cursory search of every post I have made that relates to Hyundai in Town Hall since October 2005. I would like to know how you did that, and how much time it took you. I just did a "Search" on "backy Hyundai" and it returned only 200 results (the maximum allowed), and it went back only a few weeks.

    Anyway, since this is a car discussion and not a court of law where I am on trial, I don't really see the point of taking your time and my time with all this foolishness, do you? Maybe to save everyone's time, some people who have been following the Hyundai-related discussions for the past few years can vouch for my claim that I have made negative statements about Hyundais (e.g. my tirades about the IIHS frontal crash test result on the '01 Elantra and how Hyundai responded to it).

    And then we can get back to talking about cars, instead of individuals. It does amaze me though why you have such interest in what I say and why. Wouldn't you rather talk about cars?
  • moparbadmoparbad Member Posts: 3,870
    Ah, so there are no options on the Rabbit! Interesting marketing strategy. But that also means that owners can't get options such as a power moonroof or alloy wheels.

    Incorrect.

    image
  • backybacky Twin CitiesMember Posts: 18,946
    I'm not surprised. But I'm not the one who said that everything is standard on the Rabbit. I was relying on that information when I commented on the lack of options.
  • moparbadmoparbad Member Posts: 3,870
    Ah, so there are no options on the Rabbit! Interesting marketing strategy. But that also means that owners can't get options such as a power moonroof or alloy wheels.

    You relied on incorrect information. ;)

    Now you know. ;)
  • reddroverrreddroverr Member Posts: 509
    . This list spotlights the cars with the lowest residual values for 2006 — that is, they're likely to depreciate the most during the ownership period. Below, we show the percentage of its original value that each vehicle is likely to retain after five years with an annual mileage of 15,000.
    These cars aren't as bad a deal as you might think. Many of them are very inexpensive to begin with. Furthermore, cars with low residual values can be bargains when purchased used, since you'll likely be able to purchase a car on this list for far less than you'd pay for a competing vehicle more adept at holding its value.

    1 2006 Ford Focus — 14.4%2 2006 Dodge Stratus — 14.7%
    3 2006 Kia Optima — 16.2%
    4 2006 Nissan Sentra — 17.8%5 2006 Suzuki Reno — 18.2%
    6 2006 Kia Rio — 20.2% 7 2006 Chrysler Sebring — 20.3%
    8 2006 Hyundai Elantra — 20.4% 9 2006 Kia Spectra — 21.9%
    10 2006 Mercury Grand Marquis — 22.6%
  • reddroverrreddroverr Member Posts: 509
    Well, potential buyers, take note: With resale value in mind, we've compiled this list of the 10 cars likely to depreciate the least during ownership. Included is the percentage of its original value that each vehicle is likely to retain after five years, with an annual mileage of 15,000. Our residual value percentages are based on each car's national True Market ValueSM (TMV) price, plus typical options and destination charge.

    2006 Mini Cooper — 54 percent 2006 Dodge Viper — 52.5 percent
    2006 Toyota Camry Solara — 52 percent
    2006 Honda S2000 — 51.4 percent
    2006 Porsche 911 — 50 percent
    2006 BMW M3 — 48.7 percent
    2006 Volkswagen New Beetle — 48.6 percent
    2006 Toyota Matrix — 48.3 percent
    2006 Acura RSX — 48.3 percent
    2006 BMW 3 Series — 48.2 percent

    Of course these aren't really the cars we are looking at. Wonder how the Fit and Yaris will figure.
  • tsgeiseltsgeisel Member Posts: 352
    Probably the most overrated auto statistic out there - as far as it applies to me.

    In the last 15 years, I've owned 2 cars. If you plan on keeping your car a long time, the residual just isn't that important. A small added bonus, but not much of a concern.
  • randydriverrandydriver Member Posts: 262
    I really dont care about that because I own my cars so long. It matters much more to me about the mechanics and the looks of the car.
  • johnnyvjjohnnyvj Member Posts: 112
    Probably the most overrated auto statistic out there - as far as it applies to me.

    In the last 15 years, I've owned 2 cars. If you plan on keeping your car a long time, the residual just isn't that important. A small added bonus, but not much of a concern.


    I'd tend to disagree... the difference between a car that holds its value and one that depreciates quickly can cost you thousands, even after holding on to a vehicle for 5-10 years.

    Somewhere else its posted that the Ford Focus only fetches 14% of its initial price after 5 years. In the list above, some cars fetch more than 50% of their initial price... a 36% of sticker difference, aka several thousand dollars.

    That's huge, frankly. :surprise:

    And even if you were to hold onto a car a few years past that and the differences were halved, it'd still be huge. Maybe if I ever make it big in the stock market, I'd feel differently. :wink:
  • backybacky Twin CitiesMember Posts: 18,946
    Edmunds' estimates don't hold up in the real world in my experience. For instance, I recently sold my '01 Elantra GLS 5-speed with only cruise and remote locking as options after 5-1/2 years of ownership for 50% of its purchase price. Retaining only 20% of value after 5 years is ridiculous, except maybe if they are figuring from MSRP and selling for auction value for a car that isn't in good condition.
  • johnnyvjjohnnyvj Member Posts: 112
    Regardless, there's just some cars that you're going to get less for when you go to trade-in, and some cars you'll get more.

    With Honda and Toyota, you tend to get more. I know this from experience. :wink:

    With the Focus getting disastrous resale, I can only assume that's from its early history of mechanical problems, which I think have been at least partly addressed by Ford by now. Perhaps resale here is acting as a 'lagging indicator'.

    Ditto for all the Kias on the poor resale value list (three)... I'm assuming that they're getting the short end of the stick due to past reliability problems, and the product has improved a bit recently.
  • micwebmicweb Member Posts: 1,617
    "To raise fuel efficiency and cut emissions, the new [1.8]engine uses Toyota's variable valve timing for both intake and output strokes [what, it didn't before?] -- known as Dual VVT-i -- and ultralight pistons. It also reduces friction by using roller bearings in the rocker arms. [I think the Fit has the roller bearing feature now.]

    To make the engine smaller and lighter, Toyota used a modular front section of the engine, which incorporates the water pump and chain cover.

    Toyota also used smaller-diameter spark plugs to reduce engine size."

    ----------excerpts from Autoweek
  • moparbadmoparbad Member Posts: 3,870
    Is the new 1.8 engine in the Yaris?
  • lhansonlhanson Member Posts: 268
    No it comes with a 1.5 engine.
  • moparbadmoparbad Member Posts: 3,870
    What low end sedan is the new 1.8 being used in? :confuse:
  • micwebmicweb Member Posts: 1,617
    Corolla and Matrix.
  • alpha01alpha01 Member Posts: 4,747
    I don't know if you were being sarcastic, but no, the 1.8L was not Dual VVTi previously...

    ~alpha
  • randydriverrandydriver Member Posts: 262
    Isnt that in the new Nissan Versa?
  • backybacky Twin CitiesMember Posts: 18,946
    Yes, non-VVT though.
  • randydriverrandydriver Member Posts: 262
    oh okey.
  • micwebmicweb Member Posts: 1,617
    This is quite an increase. I assume they have changed the final gear ratio or re-done 5th gear for lower rpm. Not that the 2000-2005 Focii ran high rpm on the freeway like the xA and Golfs I had.

    This must meant manufacturer's who make 5 speeds are assuming we haven't forgotten to downshift to 4th or even 3rd as needed for full passing power.

    I did get lazy with my Golfs. They turned over a 4,000 rpm at 80, which meant once you were on the freeway you hardly ever had to shift (once you quit checking to see if it was already in 5th).
  • germancarfan1germancarfan1 Member Posts: 221
    2007 Rabbit is placed in MEDIUM (Accord, Camry, Volvo S60, BMW 3-series) weight class and still manages amazing scores for such a small car! That's 2 classes ABOVE most/all of its competitors!

    The results:

    Frontal Driver: 4 stars
    Frontal Passenger: 4 stars
    Front seat Side impact: 5 stars
    Rear Seat Side Impact: 5 stars

    These are the EXACT same scores the BMW 3-series, Volvo S60 MB C-class, received in the SAME weight class.

    This currently places the Rabbit as the least expensive car in the 2007 MEDIUM class with these scores!
  • backybacky Twin CitiesMember Posts: 18,946
    Those are pretty good scores, especially for side impact, but I would like to have seen better results on the frontal crash tests. It will be interesting to see how it stacks up in the IIHS tests.

    Saying the Rabbit is currently the least expensive car in the 2007 MEDIUM class with these scores is faint praise--and also misleading. First, there's currently only one car in that group, the Caliber, that is lower priced than the Rabbit. There are several more expensive cars in that group that have equal or better scores than the Rabbit, including some priced not much above the Rabbit such as the Accord DX. Second, the Caliber scored dual five stars for frontal impact, and hasn't been rated yet for side impact. So to imply the Rabbit is better is premature.
  • germancarfan1germancarfan1 Member Posts: 221
    " I would like to have seen better results on the frontal crash tests."

    Scoring 4 stars in frontal tests in the MEDIUM class with cars that are significantly larger is mass is a stunning acomplishment. Take the Rabbit and place it in the "light" class (2 classes BELOW MEDIUM) with many of its competitors and it would most likely score 5 stars. I would only imagine how poorly the Accent, Fit, or Yaris would do if tested in the MEDIUM class.

    I imagine the Rabbit will score a Silver award (like the Jetta and Passat), or even a Gold in the IIHS tests.

    ALso, given that "In new cars from model years later than 2000, 51 percent of driver deaths occur in cars struck from the side compared to 44 percent in cars struck from the front," side impact results are far more important. http://www.cnn.com/2006/AUTOS/06/16/iihs_side_impact_sedans/

    Which car would you rather put your kids in the rear seat, the Accent which scored 3 stars or the Rabbit which scored 5 stars? That's a potentially life or death difference.

    "saying the Rabbit is currently the least expensive car in the 2007 MEDIUM class with these scores is faint praise--and also misleading."

    How is this misleading? The fact remains that for under $16K MSRP, the Rabbit is most likely the safest SMALL (in dimensions, not weight) car available.

    "There are several more expensive cars in that group that have equal or better scores than the Rabbit, including some priced not much above the Rabbit such as the Accord DX."

    The Accord DX isn't even sold anyone (didn't even have A/C so not really comparable). The VP replaced it which starts at $18,775. But more importantly as you've said countless times before, a small hatchback is NOT going to compete with a mid-sized sedan, right?

    I test drove a Rabbit 2-door yesterday. Without getting into the details of how it drove (simply amazing for $15,600 the dealer wanted for it), there would be no decision over what I "felt" was safer. There is a sense of solidity with the Rabbit that just isn't felt with the Fit, Yaris, etc. The doors felt heavy and solid, unlike the cheap, thin, and light doors of the Accent.
  • backybacky Twin CitiesMember Posts: 18,946
    Scoring 4 stars in frontal tests in the MEDIUM class with cars that are significantly larger is mass is a stunning acomplishment. Take the Rabbit and place it in the "light" class (2 classes BELOW MEDIUM) with many of its competitors and it would most likely score 5 stars. I would only imagine how poorly the Accent, Fit, or Yaris would do if tested in the MEDIUM class.

    Your logic escapes me. The "class" of a car for NHTSA frontal impact testing has to do with the weight of the car. The test itself is exactly the same no matter what the weight of the car is--the car is slammed into the same barrier, at the same speed. The scores don't depend on weight, other than you are not supposed to compare scores across weight classes.

    Actually, I contend that it is a greater accomplishment for a car that is greater in mass than the Rabbit--which almost all the cars in the MEDIUM test class are--to get 4 stars in the frontal crash. Think about it. The front of the car has to absorb the effects of the extra weight decelerating instantly to 0 mph.

    I think it's premature to anoint the Rabbit the "safest car under $18K MSRP" based only on NHTSA testing. For under $18K I could buy a car like a Civic, that has excellent NHTSA and IIHS crash test scores, or a Sonata that has 4x5 star NHTSA crash test scores, very good IIHS crash test scores, and standard stability control.

    You are right, the Accord DX is defunct now. But I don't recall saying countless times that a small hatchback won't compete with a mid-sized sedan. It depends on what you are looking for. Some people look for the most car for their money, whether it's a hatchback or mid-sized sedan. If you don't believe that, take a look at the Fit vs. Accord discussion.

    I look forward to driving the Rabbit myself as soon as I can do that, maybe this weekend.
  • germancarfan1germancarfan1 Member Posts: 221
    "Fatality data[11] show that 57% of all fatal crashes involve more than one vehicle. The laws of physics require that the momentum of the heavier vehicle impart higher deceleration forces to the lighter vehicle and experience correspondingly slower deceleration itself. Consequently, the occupants of the lighter vehicle experience larger forces...Accordingly, when two vehicles have identical frontal crash ratings, the heavier vehicle generally is safer than the lighter one. Fatality data demonstrate this to be the case and in a head-on collision a 1 percent weight advantage corresponds to more than a 5 percent reduction in the driver’s fatality risk, relative to the driver of the lighter vehicle."

    "The weight risk factor for heavy vehicles has the effect of offsetting frontal impact risk, derived from crash test data alone. For example, an "average" (3,300 lb.) passenger car with "average" frontal crash test ratings (4-1/2 stars by NHTSA + "ACCEPTABLE" by IIHS) has the equivalent SCORE as a 2,500 lb. passenger car rated 5-stars by NHTSA + "GOOD" by IIHS. In effect the improved crash test ratings compensated for the lighter weight, and the driver fatality rate stayed the same. This is the reason both NHTSA and IIHS warn consumers to only compare frontal impact ratings between vehicles within +/- 200 lbs of each other."

    http://www.informedforlife.org/viewartcl.php?index=6

    So, while the Rabbit received "only" 4 stars in the Frontal crash, given its increased weight, it's risk assessment would be that of a 5-star rating in the "light" or "compact" weight class.

    Either way, after reviewing reports that show that those involved in an accident in a car rated at only 3 stars side impact have FOUR TIMES the risk of serious injury compared with a car rated at 5-stars, I will not purchase any car that has a side impact rating lower than 5 stars. It's just not worth the risk. So, if someone values the safety of their occupants from side impacts (all too numerous where I live) and wants a SMALL car, they really are limited to the Rabbit and Civic.
  • backybacky Twin CitiesMember Posts: 18,946
    I think you are misinterpreting the quote from the Informedforlife site. What it is trying to say is that in a collision of a heavier vehicle vs. a lighter vehicle, the heavier vehicle has the advantage, all other things being equal:

    Accordingly, when two vehicles have identical frontal crash ratings, the heavier vehicle generally is safer than the lighter one.

    That is what the "equivalent score" discussion is about. It's not possible to consider the Rabbit for the lower weight class because it doesn't fit into that class, and if you removed enough weight from the car to fit into the class, who knows how the crash protection would be affected? Anyway, even if that were possible, the Rabbit didn't get 4-1/2 stars for its average frontal score (it was 4), so its "equivalent" score would not be 5.

    By your logic, you would want to buy one of the other Medium-class cars that got at least 4 stars in the frontal crash test and which are heavier than the Rabbit, because they would be safer, right?

    Since according to the Informedforlife site frontal collisions are responsible for many more fatalities than side collisions (43% vs 26%), and a difference of one star can double the risk of serious injury or death, I still would rather have five stars than four stars on the front. Five stars all around would be especially good. Also, I respect the IIHS tests more than the NHTSA tests because the IIHS frontal test is tougher (faster, and offset) and the side test considers head injuries in the rankings. Since the Jetta did well in the IIHS tests, the Rabbit should do well also. However, I recommend you wait for the IIHS tests because there have been some cars that received 5 stars on the NHTSA side impact tests and did not do well in the IIHS side impact tests (the side curtains on the Rabbit should mitigate that risk, however).
  • backybacky Twin CitiesMember Posts: 18,946
    Here is my report on my test drive of the Rabbit 3-door. I also posted this link in the "Economy Sedans ($16-20k)" discussion because I think that where the Rabbit really fits (if we forget it's not a sedan...), given its lowest possible list price is about $15.6k and goes over $20k for the 5-door model. Also in size, power, and features, it is not a low-end car.

    backy, "The Forums Test Drive Team" #182, 1 Jul 2006 2:12 pm
  • ross14ross14 Member Posts: 36
    We all know the Rabbit review was a foregone positive rave. Backy, we know how you uplift Teutonic Volks. Cars. Ha Ha! Seriously, a great, descriptive, detailed report on a car that we all want to set small car standards. I remember my first ride in a Rabbit many years ago, & continually hope that the marque returns to its glory.
  • germancarfan1germancarfan1 Member Posts: 221
    Medium Class along with Jetta, Passat, BMW 3 series, Audi A4, and Lexus IS.
    http://www.iihs.org/ratings/default.aspx
Sign In or Register to comment.