Trust me, I know that trading in a car for one that gets better mileage is a losing proposition, money wise.
But, this is CCBA, and we're supposed to encourage economic activity and buying of new vehicles, not suppress it.
Not to worry - we're standing pat with the current fleet for the time being. Finally getting onto the right side of the debt curve and I really don't want to blow it with one bad decision.
The VUE is at 48K, the ION just turned 50K and the MINI ... well, I've no idea how many miles it has. Maybe 10K?
But, any excuse to look is one I'll take. Auto show is at the end of March / beginning of April, and I'm sure I'll take a trip downtown to check it out.
EDIT: Wife and daughter discussed the possibility of the wife driving the MINI this summer to her classes, since the daughter is a perpetual homebody and doesn't really go anywhere except to work and back.
"It would still take a full year JUST TO RECOVER THE SALES tax, then another three years to recover the difference between a Prius and trade on my X3. "
I tell people all the time to do the math- in most cases buying a new car is much more expensive than keeping the one you have- even if it may need a few repairs or gets less than stellar mpg numbers. Still, people will take on a $300 -or more- car payment because their old car needed more repairs or got poor gas mileage. Yes,they are really saving money. I remember some dimwit in one of these topics who asked about trading a three year old SUV for a new Acura TL because the SUV was "unreliable". The guy was buried in the SUV(a $650/month loan) to the tune of $11,500 and everyone told him that rolling negative equity into a new car loan was a terrible idea. He became indignant and said he knew what was best for his family. A fool and his credit rating...
Mine: 1995 318ti Club Sport-2020 C43-1996 Speed Triple Challenge Cup Replica
Wife's: 2021 Sahara 4xe
Son's: 2018 330i xDrive
The latest one is relocation talk... Considering an opportunity right now that would land me in the Great White North (well, Minnesota) and started musing about how we would end up wanting something with power going to all 4 wheels.
So we went from how her Jetta aspirations would be shelved if we are up there, and the merits of Outbacks versus the more traditional truck/SUV modes of 4wd/awd. Some late-night surfing that I intended just for grins-and-giggles proved a bit dangerous, as I was reminded of the one thing that would have kept me from getting my current Volvo, if only I coulda found it back then...
If you're looking to buy without a trade, the next few months reflect higher prices due to income tax refunds. Folks use them for downpayments and sales increase --- ergo inflated auction prices. Your trade-in might be worth more which may offset the seasonal premium.
Yeah, my dad had a rolling turd colored 72 Impala. Nice car taht a paint job would have done wonders for.
The '72 Impala was a really good looking car. Shame about the color, though! My grandparents' '72, at least, was forest green (I think GM called it "Sequoia") with a white vinyl top. When I was a kid, I wanted that car bad, and asked them to hold on to it until I turned 16. I think I was around 8 or 9 at the time. I remember Granddad laughing and saying the car wouldn't last that long!
I am starting to find that I'm more tolerant of brown Maybe it's because my 2000 Park Ave is kind of a sandstone color. I think they call it "Bronzemist Metallic", but without all the fancy marketing terminology, essentially, it's light brown.
I always preferred the '71 styling on the big Chevys - almost Caddy-like.
Brown paint was a staple of the '70s of course, along with golds and greens. I always liked the dark rootbeer browns along with the slightly lighter copper-browns. Olds had a color in '71 called "Sienna" (other GM divisions probably also had this under other names) that is really attractive. It is almost the same as the metallic brown offered on the Toyota Venza these days.
Given the lack of interior colors these days other than tan or gray or black, I'm surprised that there aren't more brown paint colors offered. At least they would go well with the tan interior.
Bought a brand new 71 impala custom coupe. First car with factory a/c. Beige with brown vinyl roof. Brown vinyl interior. Loved that car. The 350 V8 and turbohydromatic transmission was awsome. One issue was that when the brakes got wet, stopping was frightening.
I always preferred the '71 styling on the big Chevys - almost Caddy-like.
Yeah, the '71 was good too, but I think I prefer the '72 because the '71 is just TOO Caddy-like. I prefer the subtle, low grille on the '72 to the more upright, Caddy-esque of the '71. The '71 tried to be a poor man's Cadillac, but I thought the '72 was a brief return to sportiness, before it all went to hell in a velour-and-shag covered handbasket for '73.
I also like the taillights in the '72, which were in the bumper. The '71 taillights, which were narrow slits above the bumper, seemed to give the rear of the car a bit of an unfinished look, in my opinion.
Still, I think they're both lookers, in their own right. I think the '74 models were an improvement over the '73, and like the '75-76 even more. But with the more upright, pretentious grilles, they just seemed to trade any sporty dna they might have retained from the 60's for the full-blown luxury-for-the-masses look.
Went to the Louisville new car show with my dad earlier today. A few random observations (mostly gripes): 1. The Toyota Venza's interior is cheap feeling, and had the worst plastic wood I've seen in recent memory. 2. Honda and Acura's use of metallic painted plastic trim is completely out of control. My dad compared the radio/climate controls (with the painted trim) to a cheap home stereo system. 3. The signal and wiper stalks on every Hyundai I got in felt flimsy. 4. Still using four-speed automatics: Subaru Forester, Subaru Impreza, Toyota Corolla, Toyota RAV4, and Mazda2. What decade are we in? 5. Notable by their absence: Nissan Leaf, Titan, and Pathfinder; Hyundai Eqqus, Ford Ranger, Kia, BMW, Volvo, Mercedes, MINI, Saab, Audi, Porsche, Land Rover, Jaguar. 6. Full size and heavy duty trucks have gotten way too big. I've said this for years now. If you need a folding step to climb into the bed, it's too big. 7. Acura needs to fire everyone in their styling department. 8. The Nissan Juke is weird looking and a lot of the interior bits are cheap. The rear wheels have no plastic or fiberglass liners to absorb sound and prevent salt from getting on the sheet metal. The Rogue is a much more practical vehicle but probably less fun. 9. The Buick LaCrosse with the four-cylinder engine still has six portals on the hood. 10. The best values that I saw: A loaded Elantra for around $20,000, the Subaru Legacy 3.6R Limited with navigation for $32,000, and a 4x4 V8 extended cab Ram with power windows, locks, and mirrors for $30,000. The Ram's two-tone, perforated vinyl seats are a nice touch. 11. Subaru doesn't appear to offer a keyless ignition system on any of their cars in the US. Like VW, BMW, and other companies, it looks like their domestic market gets the good stuff. 12. Sat in a Fiat 500. It's noticeably smaller than a MINI, and the back seat is completely useless for adults. It's still neat.
some of the newer brown/metallic/bronze colors look pretty sharp. When my wife and I looked at the car show, she commented on a few like that as looking pretty sharp. A little different too.
My wife works under the "it's working fine, why do we need a new car" theory. And given her 2005 van only has 62K on it, that is reasonable.
But, if it strands her, goodbye. so if say the tranny crapped out when she was on the highway, odds are she would not want to drive it again after it was fixed. being a trust issue and all.
though a busted rear wiper would not trigger that response!
Maybe you or someone else can explain to me WHY some people think that the more speeds an automatic transmission has the better it is?
I mean with well matched gearing and final drive, a four speed or even a three speed will work just fine!
You can only gear a car so high before it will start to "lug" and that is very bad for the engine. Either that or it'll be constantally shifting back and forth trying to find the right gear for the conditions.
Actually, my old TWO speed Chevy Powerglide did quite well too. I never felt the need for another gear even then.
What decade are we in? Should we add another speed every couple of years?
You'd think the local dealers would put on their own display...
I wouldn't if I was a dealer unless they were locked and gated off so that interested persons could be escorted with a rep who then unlocks the car and can see if damage is being done. Show-goers can be deliberately abusive to cars. They poke prod twist and yank the poor cars until they break which in some cases leaves a negative impression to the next naive prospective purchaser getting in behind the wheel. I have sat in a car that I know the switches had been twisted beyond their stop and seats that were bent and even broken and gearshifts that some bleep would have had to have a leg on to bend it. I am always disappointed if I see a car I was anxious to check out has the doors locked but that is one of the few safeguards they can take. Even then, there are still zipper scratches and worse on the outside.
Oh, how I well remember those Sturmey Archer three speeds. 2nd gear had a tendency to suddenly slip and freewheel causing great pain when we would come down on the bar!
Now, if you have one special, super-duper model, put it up on the pedestal to keep people out, but have someone open the doors, so you can at least get a look at it..
But, no point in having 5 Porsches sitting there, with all of them locked....
It's an auto show.. yes, people will sit in them, lean on them, etc, etc... Just like in the showroom. You can't sell cars if you don't let people try them out....
That's weird, Nissan was at the Louisville show but no Infiniti. The list of missing car manufacturers/models were all for brands that have dealers in the Louisville area.
Chevrolet brought a Volt, but deemed it too good for us cretins to sit inside. It was fenced off up on a podium.
The reasons Steve mentioned. Also, most other cars in the segment have it, so a car that doesn't is perceived to be less competitive (this is the price of progress). Finally, especially in cars with smaller engines (like the Mazda2 and Corolla), more gears help to keep the car in its power band.
Went to the Milwaukee show with the family today. GMC/Chevy/Buick were doing a test drive event too, you could drive several vehicles, including the Volt. Couldn't tell if you actually could drive or if a guide did that part.
Usually we are in/out of this show in about 2 hours, today we spent almost 4 hours at the show, the kids crawling in/out a lot of vehicles, DW checking out all the 7 passenger vehicles, especially the ergonomics of the 2nd/3rd row. The kids drove the EcoBoost simulator at Ford, thankfully they won't be driving for several more years, LOL. And I can be a proud dad, the boy (7.5 year old) went and shot free throws at the Milwaukee Bucks area and got a bobblehead figure for getting 3 baskets. A couple teens had trouble with getting 1.
Lots of iPads and iPod/iPhone's in use for various things, especially signups for brochure/more info.
Fuel economy is typically better; not sure where the point of diminishing returns on that is. 8 speed? Reduced emissions too I think.
Extra speeds are better, until the thing's a low-value used car and it eats the transmission. I know if my Park Ave ever tears up its transmission, I'll be grateful that it only has 4 gears!
One thing that's annoying about all those extra gears is that it seems the cost of each extra gear goes up a disproportionate amount. For instance, if my '85 Silverado or '79 New Yorker munched its 3-speed, we're talking $650-800. If my Park Ave kills its 4-speed, maybe $1800. My uncle's '97 Silverado needed a rebuild of its 4-speed auto a few years ago, and it was $1860.
Some 4-speeds can get expensive though. I think my 2000 Intrepid would have been $2500 or more, and I'm sure there are some that are even more expensive. But then, get into 5-speeds and more, and suddenly I think we're looking at $4000, $5000, the sky's the limit!
As for the point of diminishing returns, well, it actually diminishes with each extra gear. 3-speed automatics were a big improvement over 2-speeds, for the most part. You got better performance AND better fuel economy. To use an old Mopar example, in 1957 the 2-speed Powerflite had a 1.72:1 first gear and 1.00:1 second gear, and the standard axle was a 3.54:1. If you got the 3-speed Torqueflite, first gear was 2.45:1, second was 1.45:1, and third was 1.00:1. Standard axle was a 3.36:1. So, you got better takeoff with the quicker first gear, and better highway economy with the taller axle.
Chrysler ultimately took that axle as tall as 2.26:1 in 1981 V-8 cars. So tall in fact, that they had to change first and second gear to keep from lugging the engine.
When the car makers went from 3 speed to 4-speed automatics in the early 80's, it was mainly for the benefit of fuel economy. No doubt they would have shot for better performance as well, but with fuel economy and emissions standards strangling them, the automakers mainly went for the fuel economy angle initially. As the emissions systems and computer systems improved, the performance started to come back.
Going from a 4-speed to a 5-speed automatic probably has a negligible difference in a bigger car, unless you do a lot of highway driving, but it probably helps out a lot with 4-cyl engines and the smaller 6-cyl. I doubt putting a 5-speed in my 2000 Park Ave Ultra or Lemko's 2007 DTS would improve things much, though.
Actually, my old TWO speed Chevy Powerglide did quite well too. I never felt the need for another gear even then.
Was that behind a 327 or 283? I'd imagine that 327 wasn't bad with 2-speeds, but the 283 and later 307 got pretty overmatched, as the cars got heavier. I remember Consumer Reports testing a '68 Impala with the 307/Powerglide, and they got 0-60 in around 14.5 seconds. Back in the early 90's, I actually found an Impala with that combo on a local used car lot! I drove it, and yeah, kind of a dog. Nice cruiser, but just don't try challenging anybody to a drag race. And unfortunately, when you drive something that old, people are gonna presume it's fast, even if it's not, and try to get you to race.
But yeah, sometimes if the engine's big enough, it seems like 2 gears are almost enough! If I really stomp my '79 New Yorker, it'll hold 1st to around 55 mph, and then if I let up, before you know it it's in direct drive, so second gear almost seems un-necessary! If I kept my foot in it, I think it would hold second to around 70-75 mph. My '67 Catalina would also hold first to about that speed, and even chirp the rear when it shifted into second!
But it's a turbo? That leaves the Tiguan, SRX, or Forester, I think...
Tiguan - didn't really look at them SRX - I wish we had the household income to get one of those, but nope Forester - I did look at Subie's on Saturday, but I looked primarily at the Outback 3.6 Limited. But again, nope.
Wow, I didn't think this would be so hard for you guys to figure out.
Not that it will help much, but I will tell you that we picked up a leftover '10 model. Fully loaded - Bluetooth, nav, backup camera, leather, sunroof. About the only feature not available on this model is a power liftgate, but otherwise it is fully loaded.
Great post on trans rebuild comparisons. I wonder if the new 6-8 speed automatics will be worth fixing due to costs,complexity, and the lack of qualified technitions. The older stuff broke often enough that an industry of shops was created and parts were plentiful. Competition breeds market pressure which kept prices lower. This new stuff may last longer [?] but if you have a problem down the road, may not be worth fixing.
This new stuff may last longer [?] but if you have a problem down the road, may not be worth fixing.
Just going by anecdotal evidence, I don't know if transmissions really last all that much longer or not. Even with all the old relics I've owned, I've only needed two transmission rebuilds. First was a 1982 Cutlass Supreme, with 61,000 miles on it, that I bought for $800 in 1993. That was around $675. And in that case, I might have been able to get by without a rebuild. It was holding the gears way too long and shifting much later than it should have. There was a buildup of sediment, metal shavings, etc that was causing that. The guy at the shop said he could give it a really good flush, try to get everything out, for around $150, but said that problem might come back within a year. Or, I could just get the rebuild and not worry about it. I thought I was going to keep that car for a good long time, so I sprung for the rebuild. And about a year later, the engine was shot. :sick:
The second was a 1979 Newport that I bought from the junkyard for $250. It had about 248,000 miles on it. It actually drove home from the junkyard just fine, and I never had any issues with the transmission, until the first day I tried to use it to deliver pizzas. It started slipping really bad, so on a delivery run, after I made the last delivery but before returning to the store, I tried to slip home and get my Dart, and the Newport didn't quite make it over the first hill on my street. So I just let it coast back down the hill and off onto the shoulder, ran the 1/4 mile home to get the other car, and dealt with the Newport after I got off work.
It seemed fine again for awhile, until it died again, a few weeks later, about a half mile from the local transmission shop. And that's when I found out THEY were the ones that junked the car! Turns out an old guy brought it in, they told him it needed to be rebuilt. He didn't want to put any money into it, so he just gave it to them. They called the junkyard to come get it, and by some stroke of luck (dunno if it was good or bad :P ) I went to that junkyard less than an hour after the car came in. Anyway, I had them rebuild it, and that one was around $650, back in 1997.
On the newer front, a friend of mine had a 1998 Tracker that needed major transmission work about every 20,000 miles, until the 60K warranty was up. I'm convinced that the dealer just did the bare minimum to limp it through the warranty, the last time being around 58-59,000 miles. Then, around 85,000 miles, it died again. Local shop got it running for about 60 bucks, but said it was probably not long for this world. And then around 92,000, it finally died. I helped him find a used one and someone to put it in, and it was trouble-free up to 134,000 miles, when he traded it.
My Mom and stepdad have a 1999 Altima that ate the transmission around 35,000 miles. Covered under warranty, and tranny #2 is still going, with around 320,000 miles on the car.
And then there's my uncle's '97 Silverado, which ate the first transmission around 70,000 miles or so, but was covered under an extended warranty. That second transmission went around the 108,000 mile mark.
Personally, I think I'd rather have a transmission that needs to be rebuilt every 80-100K miles, but is cheap to replace, than one that might last twice or even 3 times as long, but costs 5X as much to fix, and totals the car when it fails.
Ahh, I didn't even think of that .... but no, not the Acura.
After the purchase, the wife made the comment that she didn't have a problem dropping approx. $35K on a new vehicle since it is not a "prestige" brand.
So, what do we know?
1) It's got a turbocharged 4-cyl engine 2) It's not a prestige brand (Cadillac and Acura have been guessed) 3) Fully loaded
Modern transmissions, for the most part, last quite a bit longer than they used to. My 1962 Impala SS 327/300 H.P. needed an overhaul right around the 70,000 mile range and that was par for the course. They would start to slip between first and second.
The trans shops would modify them by using heavy duty clutches and more of them so the problem usually wouldn't happen again.
The Torqueflights were by far, the most robust at the time.
And, transmissions used to leak too. It wasn't at all uncommon to have to have them resealed around the 40,000 mile mark.
On an older car today a transmission rebuild can easily exceed the value of the car.
Comments
(1) gas went to $5 per gallon
(2) I replaced my X3 with a Prius and hyper-miled it up to 55mpg
It would still take a full year JUST TO RECOVER THE SALES tax, then another three years to recover the difference between a Prius and trade on my X3.
This doesn't mean I'm not going to replace it though (not with a Prius)
But, this is CCBA, and we're supposed to encourage economic activity and buying of new vehicles, not suppress it.
Not to worry - we're standing pat with the current fleet for the time being. Finally getting onto the right side of the debt curve and I really don't want to blow it with one bad decision.
The VUE is at 48K, the ION just turned 50K and the MINI ... well, I've no idea how many miles it has. Maybe 10K?
But, any excuse to look is one I'll take. Auto show is at the end of March / beginning of April, and I'm sure I'll take a trip downtown to check it out.
EDIT: Wife and daughter discussed the possibility of the wife driving the MINI this summer to her classes, since the daughter is a perpetual homebody and doesn't really go anywhere except to work and back.
I tell people all the time to do the math- in most cases buying a new car is much more expensive than keeping the one you have- even if it may need a few repairs or gets less than stellar mpg numbers. Still, people will take on a $300 -or more- car payment because their old car needed more repairs or got poor gas mileage. Yes,they are really saving money.
I remember some dimwit in one of these topics who asked about trading a three year old SUV for a new Acura TL because the SUV was "unreliable". The guy was buried in the SUV(a $650/month loan) to the tune of $11,500 and everyone told him that rolling negative equity into a new car loan was a terrible idea. He became indignant and said he knew what was best for his family.
A fool and his credit rating...
Mine: 1995 318ti Club Sport-2020 C43-1996 Speed Triple Challenge Cup Replica
Wife's: 2021 Sahara 4xe
Son's: 2018 330i xDrive
So we went from how her Jetta aspirations would be shelved if we are up there, and the merits of Outbacks versus the more traditional truck/SUV modes of 4wd/awd. Some late-night surfing that I intended just for grins-and-giggles proved a bit dangerous, as I was reminded of the one thing that would have kept me from getting my current Volvo, if only I coulda found it back then...
The color is kinda fugly, but... http://www.charlestonsubaru.com/certified/Subaru/2009-Subaru-Outback-616250830a0- a000201b5e82fa90603f8.htm
Alas, I'm giving myself a red light, because I'm pretty sure she won't give a green light.
The wife likes the "hot chocolate" color of the MINIs.
Compare that to the '73 Toyota Corona my folks owned which was more of a 'poop' brown.
'11 GMC Sierra 1500; '98 Alfa 156 2.0TS; '08 Maser QP; '67 Coronet R/T; '13 Fiat 500c; '20 S90 T6; '22 MB Sprinter 2500 4x4 diesel; '97 Suzuki R Wagon; '96 Opel Astra; '11 Mini Cooper S
Well, when you put it that way it sounds much better! You should obviously keep going....
Compare that to the '73 Toyota Corona my folks owned which was more of a 'poop' brown.
Yeah, my dad had a rolling turd colored 72 Impala. Nice car taht a paint job would have done wonders for.
The '72 Impala was a really good looking car. Shame about the color, though! My grandparents' '72, at least, was forest green (I think GM called it "Sequoia") with a white vinyl top. When I was a kid, I wanted that car bad, and asked them to hold on to it until I turned 16. I think I was around 8 or 9 at the time. I remember Granddad laughing and saying the car wouldn't last that long!
I am starting to find that I'm more tolerant of brown Maybe it's because my 2000 Park Ave is kind of a sandstone color. I think they call it "Bronzemist Metallic", but without all the fancy marketing terminology, essentially, it's light brown.
Still, not my first color choice.
Brown paint was a staple of the '70s of course, along with golds and greens. I always liked the dark rootbeer browns along with the slightly lighter copper-browns. Olds had a color in '71 called "Sienna" (other GM divisions probably also had this under other names) that is really attractive. It is almost the same as the metallic brown offered on the Toyota Venza these days.
Given the lack of interior colors these days other than tan or gray or black, I'm surprised that there aren't more brown paint colors offered. At least they would go well with the tan interior.
2017 Cadillac ATS Performance Premium 3.6
Yeah, the 71 design was very nice. While the early 70s weren't what you'd call any golden age of car design the Impalas back then were nice cars.
Andre - make that white top a convertible instead of vinyl and you're talking a car I almost bought in maybe 77.
Yeah, the '71 was good too, but I think I prefer the '72 because the '71 is just TOO Caddy-like. I prefer the subtle, low grille on the '72 to the more upright, Caddy-esque of the '71. The '71 tried to be a poor man's Cadillac, but I thought the '72 was a brief return to sportiness, before it all went to hell in a velour-and-shag covered handbasket for '73.
I also like the taillights in the '72, which were in the bumper. The '71 taillights, which were narrow slits above the bumper, seemed to give the rear of the car a bit of an unfinished look, in my opinion.
Still, I think they're both lookers, in their own right. I think the '74 models were an improvement over the '73, and like the '75-76 even more. But with the more upright, pretentious grilles, they just seemed to trade any sporty dna they might have retained from the 60's for the full-blown luxury-for-the-masses look.
1. The Toyota Venza's interior is cheap feeling, and had the worst plastic wood I've seen in recent memory.
2. Honda and Acura's use of metallic painted plastic trim is completely out of control. My dad compared the radio/climate controls (with the painted trim) to a cheap home stereo system.
3. The signal and wiper stalks on every Hyundai I got in felt flimsy.
4. Still using four-speed automatics: Subaru Forester, Subaru Impreza, Toyota Corolla, Toyota RAV4, and Mazda2. What decade are we in?
5. Notable by their absence: Nissan Leaf, Titan, and Pathfinder; Hyundai Eqqus, Ford Ranger, Kia, BMW, Volvo, Mercedes, MINI, Saab, Audi, Porsche, Land Rover, Jaguar.
6. Full size and heavy duty trucks have gotten way too big. I've said this for years now. If you need a folding step to climb into the bed, it's too big.
7. Acura needs to fire everyone in their styling department.
8. The Nissan Juke is weird looking and a lot of the interior bits are cheap. The rear wheels have no plastic or fiberglass liners to absorb sound and prevent salt from getting on the sheet metal. The Rogue is a much more practical vehicle but probably less fun.
9. The Buick LaCrosse with the four-cylinder engine still has six portals on the hood.
10. The best values that I saw: A loaded Elantra for around $20,000, the Subaru Legacy 3.6R Limited with navigation for $32,000, and a 4x4 V8 extended cab Ram with power windows, locks, and mirrors for $30,000. The Ram's two-tone, perforated vinyl seats are a nice touch.
11. Subaru doesn't appear to offer a keyless ignition system on any of their cars in the US. Like VW, BMW, and other companies, it looks like their domestic market gets the good stuff.
12. Sat in a Fiat 500. It's noticeably smaller than a MINI, and the back seat is completely useless for adults. It's still neat.
2020 Acura RDX tech SH-AWD, 2023 Maverick hybrid Lariat luxury package.
My wife works under the "it's working fine, why do we need a new car" theory. And given her 2005 van only has 62K on it, that is reasonable.
But, if it strands her, goodbye. so if say the tranny crapped out when she was on the highway, odds are she would not want to drive it again after it was fixed. being a trust issue and all.
though a busted rear wiper would not trigger that response!
2020 Acura RDX tech SH-AWD, 2023 Maverick hybrid Lariat luxury package.
Infiniti was there, though.... :confuse:
Edmunds Price Checker
Edmunds Lease Calculator
Did you get a good deal? Be sure to come back and share!
Edmunds Moderator
I mean with well matched gearing and final drive, a four speed or even a three speed will work just fine!
You can only gear a car so high before it will start to "lug" and that is very bad for the engine. Either that or it'll be constantally shifting back and forth trying to find the right gear for the conditions.
Actually, my old TWO speed Chevy Powerglide did quite well too. I never felt the need for another gear even then.
What decade are we in? Should we add another speed every couple of years?
I just don't understand, that's all.
I do know that some stores consider Auto Shows a waste of time.
Fuel economy is typically better; not sure where the point of diminishing returns on that is. 8 speed? Reduced emissions too I think.
Funny, I prefer a 5 speed manual to a 6 speed manual. Like the shift pattern better. Rather not have a 4 speed though.
And, yeah, where does this stop? 12 speeds?
Mercedes is working on a 9 speed, but I agree. May as well just get a CVT at some point.
I wouldn't if I was a dealer unless they were locked and gated off so that interested persons could be escorted with a rep who then unlocks the car and can see if damage is being done. Show-goers can be deliberately abusive to cars. They poke prod twist and yank the poor cars until they break which in some cases leaves a negative impression to the next naive prospective purchaser getting in behind the wheel. I have sat in a car that I know the switches had been twisted beyond their stop and seats that were bent and even broken and gearshifts that some bleep would have had to have a leg on to bend it.
I am always disappointed if I see a car I was anxious to check out has the doors locked but that is one of the few safeguards they can take. Even then, there are still zipper scratches and worse on the outside.
Sam
Never used 2nd after that!
And they would steal anything that they could unscrew including the DIPSTICK out of a new Odyssey one year!
We had an S-2000 TRASHED one year and after that, we would rope them off and listen to the people whine about how they couldn't sit in it!
Now, if you have one special, super-duper model, put it up on the pedestal to keep people out, but have someone open the doors, so you can at least get a look at it..
But, no point in having 5 Porsches sitting there, with all of them locked....
It's an auto show.. yes, people will sit in them, lean on them, etc, etc... Just like in the showroom. You can't sell cars if you don't let people try them out....
Edmunds Price Checker
Edmunds Lease Calculator
Did you get a good deal? Be sure to come back and share!
Edmunds Moderator
Yep, the VUE is gone.
Clue on the replacement ... let's just say I was able to convince my wife that 4 cylinders would work in the right circumstances.
Like, with a turbo and MINI printed on the car somewhere?
Edmunds Price Checker
Edmunds Lease Calculator
Did you get a good deal? Be sure to come back and share!
Edmunds Moderator
Half right.
Edmunds Price Checker
Edmunds Lease Calculator
Did you get a good deal? Be sure to come back and share!
Edmunds Moderator
2020 Acura RDX tech SH-AWD, 2023 Maverick hybrid Lariat luxury package.
2020 Acura RDX tech SH-AWD, 2023 Maverick hybrid Lariat luxury package.
Chevrolet brought a Volt, but deemed it too good for us cretins to sit inside. It was fenced off up on a podium.
Usually we are in/out of this show in about 2 hours, today we spent almost 4 hours at the show, the kids crawling in/out a lot of vehicles, DW checking out all the 7 passenger vehicles, especially the ergonomics of the 2nd/3rd row. The kids drove the EcoBoost simulator at Ford, thankfully they won't be driving for several more years, LOL. And I can be a proud dad, the boy (7.5 year old) went and shot free throws at the Milwaukee Bucks area and got a bobblehead figure for getting 3 baskets. A couple teens had trouble with getting 1.
Lots of iPads and iPod/iPhone's in use for various things, especially signups for brochure/more info.
-Brian
Extra speeds are better, until the thing's a low-value used car and it eats the transmission. I know if my Park Ave ever tears up its transmission, I'll be grateful that it only has 4 gears!
One thing that's annoying about all those extra gears is that it seems the cost of each extra gear goes up a disproportionate amount. For instance, if my '85 Silverado or '79 New Yorker munched its 3-speed, we're talking $650-800. If my Park Ave kills its 4-speed, maybe $1800. My uncle's '97 Silverado needed a rebuild of its 4-speed auto a few years ago, and it was $1860.
Some 4-speeds can get expensive though. I think my 2000 Intrepid would have been $2500 or more, and I'm sure there are some that are even more expensive. But then, get into 5-speeds and more, and suddenly I think we're looking at $4000, $5000, the sky's the limit!
As for the point of diminishing returns, well, it actually diminishes with each extra gear. 3-speed automatics were a big improvement over 2-speeds, for the most part. You got better performance AND better fuel economy. To use an old Mopar example, in 1957 the 2-speed Powerflite had a 1.72:1 first gear and 1.00:1 second gear, and the standard axle was a 3.54:1. If you got the 3-speed Torqueflite, first gear was 2.45:1, second was 1.45:1, and third was 1.00:1. Standard axle was a 3.36:1. So, you got better takeoff with the quicker first gear, and better highway economy with the taller axle.
Chrysler ultimately took that axle as tall as 2.26:1 in 1981 V-8 cars. So tall in fact, that they had to change first and second gear to keep from lugging the engine.
When the car makers went from 3 speed to 4-speed automatics in the early 80's, it was mainly for the benefit of fuel economy. No doubt they would have shot for better performance as well, but with fuel economy and emissions standards strangling them, the automakers mainly went for the fuel economy angle initially. As the emissions systems and computer systems improved, the performance started to come back.
Going from a 4-speed to a 5-speed automatic probably has a negligible difference in a bigger car, unless you do a lot of highway driving, but it probably helps out a lot with 4-cyl engines and the smaller 6-cyl. I doubt putting a 5-speed in my 2000 Park Ave Ultra or Lemko's 2007 DTS would improve things much, though.
Was that behind a 327 or 283? I'd imagine that 327 wasn't bad with 2-speeds, but the 283 and later 307 got pretty overmatched, as the cars got heavier. I remember Consumer Reports testing a '68 Impala with the 307/Powerglide, and they got 0-60 in around 14.5 seconds. Back in the early 90's, I actually found an Impala with that combo on a local used car lot! I drove it, and yeah, kind of a dog. Nice cruiser, but just don't try challenging anybody to a drag race. And unfortunately, when you drive something that old, people are gonna presume it's fast, even if it's not, and try to get you to race.
But yeah, sometimes if the engine's big enough, it seems like 2 gears are almost enough! If I really stomp my '79 New Yorker, it'll hold 1st to around 55 mph, and then if I let up, before you know it it's in direct drive, so second gear almost seems un-necessary! If I kept my foot in it, I think it would hold second to around 70-75 mph. My '67 Catalina would also hold first to about that speed, and even chirp the rear when it shifted into second!
Our showroom cars didn't get thrashed except I would cringe everytime saomeone would SLAM a door.
For whatever reason, the Auto Shows seem to bring out the worst in some people.
No - in order to get ALL4, you must get the turbo engine.
But, it's not a MINI.
Tiguan - didn't really look at them
SRX - I wish we had the household income to get one of those, but nope
Forester - I did look at Subie's on Saturday, but I looked primarily at the Outback 3.6 Limited. But again, nope.
Wow, I didn't think this would be so hard for you guys to figure out.
Not that it will help much, but I will tell you that we picked up a leftover '10 model. Fully loaded - Bluetooth, nav, backup camera, leather, sunroof. About the only feature not available on this model is a power liftgate, but otherwise it is fully loaded.
Just going by anecdotal evidence, I don't know if transmissions really last all that much longer or not. Even with all the old relics I've owned, I've only needed two transmission rebuilds. First was a 1982 Cutlass Supreme, with 61,000 miles on it, that I bought for $800 in 1993. That was around $675. And in that case, I might have been able to get by without a rebuild. It was holding the gears way too long and shifting much later than it should have. There was a buildup of sediment, metal shavings, etc that was causing that. The guy at the shop said he could give it a really good flush, try to get everything out, for around $150, but said that problem might come back within a year. Or, I could just get the rebuild and not worry about it. I thought I was going to keep that car for a good long time, so I sprung for the rebuild. And about a year later, the engine was shot. :sick:
The second was a 1979 Newport that I bought from the junkyard for $250. It had about 248,000 miles on it. It actually drove home from the junkyard just fine, and I never had any issues with the transmission, until the first day I tried to use it to deliver pizzas. It started slipping really bad, so on a delivery run, after I made the last delivery but before returning to the store, I tried to slip home and get my Dart, and the Newport didn't quite make it over the first hill on my street. So I just let it coast back down the hill and off onto the shoulder, ran the 1/4 mile home to get the other car, and dealt with the Newport after I got off work.
It seemed fine again for awhile, until it died again, a few weeks later, about a half mile from the local transmission shop. And that's when I found out THEY were the ones that junked the car! Turns out an old guy brought it in, they told him it needed to be rebuilt. He didn't want to put any money into it, so he just gave it to them. They called the junkyard to come get it, and by some stroke of luck (dunno if it was good or bad :P ) I went to that junkyard less than an hour after the car came in. Anyway, I had them rebuild it, and that one was around $650, back in 1997.
On the newer front, a friend of mine had a 1998 Tracker that needed major transmission work about every 20,000 miles, until the 60K warranty was up. I'm convinced that the dealer just did the bare minimum to limp it through the warranty, the last time being around 58-59,000 miles. Then, around 85,000 miles, it died again. Local shop got it running for about 60 bucks, but said it was probably not long for this world. And then around 92,000, it finally died. I helped him find a used one and someone to put it in, and it was trouble-free up to 134,000 miles, when he traded it.
My Mom and stepdad have a 1999 Altima that ate the transmission around 35,000 miles. Covered under warranty, and tranny #2 is still going, with around 320,000 miles on the car.
And then there's my uncle's '97 Silverado, which ate the first transmission around 70,000 miles or so, but was covered under an extended warranty. That second transmission went around the 108,000 mile mark.
Personally, I think I'd rather have a transmission that needs to be rebuilt every 80-100K miles, but is cheap to replace, than one that might last twice or even 3 times as long, but costs 5X as much to fix, and totals the car when it fails.
Ahh, I didn't even think of that .... but no, not the Acura.
After the purchase, the wife made the comment that she didn't have a problem dropping approx. $35K on a new vehicle since it is not a "prestige" brand.
So, what do we know?
1) It's got a turbocharged 4-cyl engine
2) It's not a prestige brand (Cadillac and Acura have been guessed)
3) Fully loaded
The trans shops would modify them by using heavy duty clutches and more of them so the problem usually wouldn't happen again.
The Torqueflights were by far, the most robust at the time.
And, transmissions used to leak too. It wasn't at all uncommon to have to have them resealed around the 40,000 mile mark.
On an older car today a transmission rebuild can easily exceed the value of the car.