Used Vehicles Best Values

cccompson

Agreed, get a 1997 or up Park Avenue. Lots of bang for the buck and will run forever.

lightwave25

Well, I got my new car today. I ended up with a 2006 Altima. It doesn't have the leather or Bose stereo like my 2005, but I'm leasing it for $60 less per month.

lilengineerboy

Good for you, that should still be a fun ride (since its basically what u had b4) and should make an excelent family transport when necessary.
It also should be OK with gas and insurance.

plekto

The best one is a used 2006 Lucerne CXS. You can get one now for a bit over 20K and its worth every penny. Handles like.. well, not like a Buick. Very much like an older 1990s S-Class.

Or if you have to go used, a Park Ave, since the LeSabre is essentially unobtainium with a bench seat.

zodiac2004

Agreed, get a 1997 or up Park Avenue. Lots of bang for the buck and will run forever.

Any opinions about the supercharged engine on the ultras. Is is better to stick with the base engine in terms of reliability/maintenance costs.
Didn't these cars come with the heads-up display. Any opinions about those?

british_rover

To avoide the possible plastic manifold failure I would go with the SC motor. All of them have metal intake manifolds.

While not every plastic intake manifold failed lots of them did so it is something to watch out for.

phinneas519

I remember hearing about that. Hopefully it's not too difficult to find a Park Ave with that engine option.

zodiac2004

Ah, a familiar face in this thread.

A few more questions for you if you don't mind.

Does the SC engine require premium gas.
How would you rate the overall reliability/repair costs of this model - let's stick with the SC
Do you think the interior trim would be in good shape for a 10 year old car - in terms of not coming apart.

This is one car I have never driven - nor sat in. So any impressions are appreciated.

british_rover

As far as I remember it does require premium fuel.

The 3800 engine is an outstanding motor even with the SC on top a couple of hundred thousand miles with appropriate maintance should be no issue.

I would be a little hessitant about the HUD display though as I have heard of that having problems. It is a typical 1990's GM car so the drivetrain is great, the electrics are average and the paint/interior finish is poor. If the interior was well taken care of and stored mostly inside it might be ok. Otherwise it will likely be in poor shape.

The paint will also most likely be faded and comming off unless it was stored in doors and waxed constantly.

imidazol97

>the LeSabre is essentially unobtainium with a bench seat.v

I don't understand this. Almost all the leSabres have bench seats. A few had a console in the middle designed for business papers, worktop, technology holder, etc. But 99% of the leSabres which were not made after 2005, I believe, have bench seats. Some comfortable cloth, some comfortable leather. The Park Avenue seats tend to be covered with a topping to make it slightly plusher in feel. But the Park Ave is 500 pounds heavier.

The UIM (upper intake manifold) once replaced rarely gives problems. In 99 they changed that design from the factory. Few failures in 2000 and later. Some people blame DexCool for failures of gaskets around edges leaking; some failed with an EGR plastic pipe setup through the middle. 1999s had a smaller diameter metal pipe sticking up into the UIM manifold's plastic out later separated by a small air space.
DexCool does fine if changed every 24000 or two years just like regular antifreeze.

The UIM is a $150 item with $120 labor at typical practiced garage. Some with medium mechanical skills replace their own (and do the lower seals as well). Watching antifreeze level in recovery tank for slow drop without a temperature explanation from season to season being reason to have a knowledgeable garage check.

The intake manifold problem is overemphasized--unlike Toyota's sludge or their and Honda's transmission failures/problems. I would avoid the supercharger myself because I don't want the extra maintenance for it, like frequent oil changes and possible failures and replacement.

I believe the Lucerne's 3800 has a completely different, metal UIM.

lilengineerboy

This paint issue is pretty common for 90s American cars because manufacturers were switching to HVLP paint systems, using paint and thinners with fewer SOCs, and water based paints. It took them a little while to get the process down so the rest of the world could copy it.

plekto

The supercharger is fine. Really. It operates at only a few PSI of boost - so it's more like a "slightly better than normal-charger"

So engine life is essentially identical.

As for the cars, you definately want the Ultra if you can. I presonally like the last couple of years' designs with the more angled lines, but the early to mid 90s models were much better inside. better electricals and interior by far - it seems as if the bean-counters made it cheaper inside every couple of years until they got rid of it.

All of that said, though, you can find a 1-2 year old LaCrosse or Lucerne for cheap. Really cheap. We're talking under $16K for a LaCrosse CXS, which is effectively a FWD version of the CTS. And it has a much better interior than any of the older models had. The bench seat is nicer, too, IMO, because it makes the car feel much more spacious and open up front.

http://www.autotrader.com/fyc/vdp.jsp?car_id=212411646
One of about 50 or so selling for this price on autotrader. It drives *very* nice with the 3.6 engine. Zero throttle-lag and plenty of midrange power for city traffic. Nice Cadillac quality suspension as well. Much firmer and better than the LeSabre it replaces.

british_rover

I think the eaton Supercharger in those series II 3800s only made 7 or 8 psi of boost tops so really not a lot of stress on the motors.

The guys I knew that raced those engines were running more then double that boost without major engine problems. The problem they had was that the final drive in the transmission could not take that kind of abuse.

No one makes a strong enough pinion gear for that transmission so you just buy the best you can, have it cryo treated, run high quality synthetic fluid and pray you make it through a season without a failure.

alltogetherook

My daughter is almost three and still rides rear-facing. Her legs are bent or she hangs them over the sides of the carseat. She is VERY tall for her age but skinny and hasn't reached the 33lb. rear-facing weight limit on her carseat yet. Most children prefer to sit rear-facing because it gives them someplace to put their feet. Imagine sitting on a bar stool without a footrest-your legs start to hurt quickly and will loose circulation. Same thing happens when kids face forward. There have been NO cases of broken legs in an accident when rear-facing (bent legs don't break). But, there have been plenty of spinal injuries forward-facing. Keep them rear-facing as long as the carseat will allow.
Plus, it's the law to keep them RF at least until they are 1-year AND 20lbs.

Thank you, I will get off my soapbox now.

phinneas519

First, the facts:

2003 Buick Park Ave Ultra (white)
77,000 miles, good-excellent condition
* Premium sound, 12 disc cd changer, moon roof, leather, seat heaters and so on.
Listed Price: $15,879

I test drove this and I have to say it is nice! Somewhat floaty ride and no steering feel, but that's to be expected from an "old person car." The leather bench was very comfortable and I quickly got the impression I could drive this thing for hours without aches and pains. My only problem would be falling asleep at the wheel due to the comfort and ease of driving. Though I don't quite have both feet in the market yet (I told the salesman) I said I was interested. After standing firm that my buying range was closer to $12,000, he said he'd try to help them meet that number since it was on the lot for 120 days. After a stop in the manager's office, he came back with the figure of $12,700 +TTL. Not too bad, right? At least according to my blue bookings it isn't. Any opinions on all of this?

british_rover

My galves book opens up around 11,000 for that same car with 50,000 miles on it.

If they have had that car on the lot for 120 days, most dealers turn their used cars over every 60 days or sometimes 90 days, then I think they can get down under 12,700. what part of the country are you in?

meateater

That's a lot of miles on an 06 car. Probably an abused rental.

phinneas519

I'm in central Wisconsin. Stevens Point (54481) to be specific. I've heard about the galves book here and there - how does it differ from the NADA guide, KBB and even the Edmunds guide?

british_rover

It is a wholesale/auction price guide but is typicaly only relevant to the northeast. That price still sounds high though but ehh I don't know that market so not sure how high.

Try the Real World Tradein Forum Volvomax probably has a better idea what they potentialy have into that car.

lilengineerboy

That's a lot of miles on an 06 car. Probably an abused rental.

There's no way thats a rental with 77k. Rental car companies dump their cars with less than 20k. They don't want to deal with an out of warranty car and they know the next buyer will want some warranty with their purchase.
That might have been a fleet car, but most likely, it was sold to some traveling salesman or something. The outside rep for Cannondale used to go through a VW every year driving to all the bike shops.

british_rover

He meant this car...

http://www.autotrader.com/fyc/vdp.jsp?car_id=212411646

But that is not a rental either because it has too many miles as well.

I can't find my unlimited Carfax password right now but I am pretty sure it is not a rental.

And even if it is what is wrong with rentals? In my experience they get serviced better then private owner cars.

Also you need to see when it was sold to figure out how many miles are too many miles. That could have been sold mid 2005 as a 2006 MY car so it would really only have about 15,000 miles a year.

cccompson

Well, I've had both motors (in Oldsmobiles and Pontiacs). The SC seems to get slightly better mileage on the highway but requires premium fuel and the unit itself can fail with miles (figure $500 for a rebuilt unit if you can do the labor yourself). To me, it's a toss-up and I wouldn't accept (or reject) a particular car based on which motor it has.

HUD was, I belive, an option (maybe standard on the Ultra). I personally liked it on an SSEI Bonneville I once had. You can turn it off when desired. If it fails, there's no requirement that it be repaired.

Unless you want a floaty ride, find one with the Grand Touring suspension option. I believe they are identifiable by a plaque on the dash to the left of the steering wheel.

dtownfb

if your daughter is over the height limit to qualify for a front facing car seat, please move her to one. While she may suffer a broken leg in a horrific accident, at least she will be able to see where you are driving and possibly talk to you. I have the best conversations with my kids pointing out different sites for them to see while we driving. Plus you can better watch her in the rear view mirror. And I guarantee she will enjoy riding in the car even more.

smittynyc

Any seat that can be used rear-facing has limits on height as well as weight. If the poster's daughter is under the height and weight limits for her particular seat, and is comfortable riding rear-facing, there is absolutely no compelling reason to face her forward.

I kept our son rear-facing until he was 2.5. It didn't prevent us from having conversations (even now that he's front-facing, I'm looking at the road most of the time), nor did it prevent me from pointing out trains, spectacular Christmas lights, cows, trucks, or anything else interesting/out of the ordinary.

dtownfb

His original post said she is VERY tall for her age (3). Stupid me assumed she met the height limit for a front facing car seat.

I'm sure your son was able to appreciate Dad pointing out a train (can't see where you are pointing). He was probably sitting there looking up at the ceiling trying to see the train. It probably took him to age 5 to realize a train is not a white puffy ball in the sky.

Seriously, either way the kids are safe and that is the important part. I know my kids appreciated being able to see where we were driving. Plus it was tons easier to load them into the car.

smittynyc

"Seriously, either way the kids are safe and that is the important part."

It is the most important part, and kids are certainly much safer in a front-facing seat than none at all.

However, kids are safest sitting rearward as opposed to not, assuming they are in a properly sized and secured seat. Look at how few toddlers/infants die in car crashes in Europe, where children sit rearward until 5 or 6.

Communicating with a rearward facing toddler really isn't that complicated -- "Wow, pretty waterfall on Daddy's side!", "Cool, check out that Excursion stretch limo on your left," etc.

jrosales

I am a Child Passenger Safety Technician, and SmittyNYC is absolutely correct - children should remain rear-facing as long as the carseat they are sitting in will allow - most convertible seats rear-face now to 33-35 pounds. The AAP has been recommending this since i believe 2002. The old mantra of 1 year/20 pounds is NOT the current recommended best practice.

The differences are that a forward facing child, in a crash, will likely suffer neck/abdominal/chest injuries, same as an adult, as their bodies absorb the impact of a crash. Whereas with a rear-facing child, the CARSEAT absorbs the impact. We use a phrase, it is better to receive a broken leg in a crash sitting rear-facing, than a broken NECK in a crash sitting forward-facing.

If you would like to view crash test footage that shows a forward-facing child and a rear-facing child in the same test, please view the following link:

http://www.cpsafety.com/articles/stayrearfacing.aspx

Scroll to the bottom and you will see a link to the crash test footage.

Also, the most important thing is the safety of the child, not being able to show him/her objects you're passing. My child was rear-facing until 3 years old, and had no problems seeing anything, or communicating with us.

Please keep your children rear-facing until the child has surpassed the rear-facing weight limit of the seat.

Every "graduation" of seats is a DEMOTION in safety - ie - forward-facing is LESS safe than rear-facing, and being in a booster is LESS safe than being harnessed.

There are also new seats available that will keep your child harnessed forward-facing beyond the standard 40 pounds (if you have a 3-in-1 seat that says it is good to 80 pounds, that only means with the seatbelt! You have to take out the harness at 40 pounds and use it as a booster seat only!) These new seats are the Cosco Apex, Sunshine Kids Radian, and the Britax Regent, Marathon, Decathlon and Boulevard.

I posted this information for anyone who may be reading this thread, it is not intended for one person only.

Thank you for reading, and for keeping your kids safe.

Jodie
CPST and mom to 2 boys (and is looking for a new-to-us car to haul everyone around in!)

qbrozen

hmmm... maybe we need a new dedicated thread for this.

anyway, i am wondering if what you are saying only applies to crashes involving the front of your car. I mean, if you get slammed in the rear, a rear-facing carseat isn't going to fare better, is it? Or how about side impact?

Our seat is, I believe, a 3 stage. I know it has 3 tilting positions and 3 harness positions. The first tilt is for rear facing only. I believe the directions read something like "keep child rear-facing until 1 year old, or 28 lbs (i'm not confident of that number, but its definitely higher than 20. could be 30), or until xx inches tall." So it gives 3 criteria. Our child hit the weight and height criteria before 1 year.

edit: ah, i just went and read that site. They are talking about frontal crashes. They do say that most accidents are frontal. oddly enough, out of 5 accidents I've had, 2 were side and 3 were rear. So my personal experience is different. I tend not to run into things.

they also comment about the height and weight of the child. They say 30 lbs, so I think that must be what my childseat instructions call for.

alltogetherook

She is not over the height limit. When she reaches the Rear-facing weight limit on her carseat (33lbs) I will turn her around forward-facing.
We have no problem talking to each other.

I also think the focus is on frontal crashes since those are the most serious & most common. Rear end crashes usually aren't cause for as serious injuries, esp. spinal.

Sorry everybody-I didn't mean to start such a heated discussion.

I do need a "new" used minivan. Any suggestions for one in the $10-12,000 range?

smittynyc

This discussion's been pretty civil, alltogether. And child safety and safety in general is a lot of people's main focus when shopping for a car, so it's natural for it to intersect with a lot of other topics.

If I were in your shoes, I'd look at 2/3 year-old Chrysler and Dodge minivans, or 2002-2003 Siennas/Odysseys.

lilengineerboy

If you are at a point in your life where you could do a lease, new Chysler minivans are very very inexpensive. That said, the market is pretty flooded with 2-5 year old ones now off lease. A quick survey of my friends at work who have them came up with 4 people love them and they have been very reliable, and 1 person has the minivan from hell, but it was that way from the start(and that person still loved everything else about it and is getting another one in the spring).
The Oddessy and Sienna are hardly "mini" vans. They are bigger than some full size vans. That said, given their size they are very easy to drive. I don't care for the Sienna before that, it has the turning circle of a bus and I found it hard to see. I also didn't like how I had to look down to change the radio. It does have a smooth ride and powertrain though.

guss

I can recommend the Chrysler, we have a 2003 with 44k mile and have not had any problem with it yet. While we bought ours new, I think you can get a great deal on a used one , especially if you go with the short version. You won't get the stow and go seats, but if you ever have to take them out they come out pretty easily. I like ours so much, sometimes I think about getting one for our second vehicle(if only I could get get that mini-van image).

The Mazda MPV can also be had pretty cheap, and has some features the Chrysler products do not have. Like 2nd row windows that go down and a storage well behind the rear seats.

As far as child seats go, I think the main thing is to just use them, and use them properly. My oldest is 7 1/2 and almost 5 foot tall and she complains that many of her friends don't use them anymore. Good thing the law here is 8 and 80 or I don't think any of them would be using them by that age.

dtownfb

My kids are in the same boat as yours so I find it hard to fathom having a 3 year old in rear facing seat. If all accidents were front impact, I would completley agree but as you illustrated that is not real llife. Again, the importatn thing is to adhere to the manufacturer's guidelines and make sure the seat is installed properly.

alltogether: a 2-3 year used GM minivan is also an option. The MPV is a great size and value but you do sacrifice significant interior space. If you have 1 or 2 small kids, it's probably not a problem. Plus there is no gas mileage savings or driving advantage over the larger "minivans". You can get a leftover 2006 for around $17-$18k.

Kirstie_H

hmmm... maybe we need a new dedicated thread for this.

How about - Child Car Seats that Fit or
Air bags: are they safe for children & children in car seats?

Those pretty much cover the topic.

alltogetherook

Thanks for the suggestions. How heavy is the third row seat in the Chrysler? Can one person remove it easily?

I did check out the MPV but didn't like how it drove-weird for a mazda. I haven't driven a GM-I'm thinking there is more usable space in the Chryslers?

cccompson

I don't know about the newer ones but, damn, the third row seat in our '96 T&C was a heavy mother. I'm a big guy and seem to recall that the first time taking it out myself was the last.

alltogetherook

Afraid of that. Bummer. I'm just a average lady-probably couldn't handle that. That means I'd have to look at '05+ for the fold flat third seat.

Hey, did your '96 have the ability to take the third row and move it to the second row so you can sit three, after removing the second row seats? I thought I read that somewhere...

lilengineerboy

My folks '89 could do that. We would pile all the mtn bikes in the back and move the 3rd row seat to the second row and the 5 of us would head to the trails.

guss

The '03 has a split bench that sits 2 on a seat and 1 on the other so it is not too heavy. I just back up to the garage and drop it on the floor.I think a woman could do it, but I would not want to do it every day.

My wife did not like the Mazda for that reason also. She said it was too narrow.

cccompson

No, I don't believe that it did have the ability to fit into the second row - it was on rollers.

alltogetherook

Is the '03 the first year of the split bench? That may work.

I think at this point I'm leaning towards the '05-it won't be loaded but it's more than I have now (nothing). At least I won't be stuck at home everyday.

Thanks for the help!

stubborn1

We have a '03 T&C with the split rear seat. My wife can handle removing and reinstalling the seats. As long as you have garage area to store them in, it's not that big of a deal. The fold flat would be nice, but we only remove the rear seat maybe 8-10 times a year so it doesn't bug us.

During the summer (rummage sale season for my wife :sick: ), we leave one half of the rear out. Still fits the 3 kids and gives her the room she needs.

suydam

I personally found taking out the seats and storing them to be a hassle. We switched to a Toyota minivan where the rear seats folded in half and swung to the sides, and the second seat was not as heavy to take out. Much nicer! Fold-flat would be even better. I think it's an important consideration when buying a functional vehicle like a minivan.

booyahcramer

Our Odyssey has seats that store into the floor, but the area you want to store into the floor has to be clear of everything before you want to stow them. Not always an easy situation especially with the kids stuff in there.

I highly recommend Weathertech heavy duty floor liners for the floor behind the third row. Protects the carpet from wet, dirt, sand, dogs paws etc.

jlawrence01

A lot of it depends on the vehicle. On the newer Chryslers that have the "stow and go" technology, it takes literally seconds.

lilengineerboy

So I went looking at a 9-3 because my uncle told me to. I test drove a new one, 2.0t (Linear, I believe) and it was in the mid-20s for an 07 (6spd, leather, no extras).
They had a '04 on the lot w/45k for $15 (170hp 2.0t, leather, moon, etc). That struck me as a lot of depreciation, but I guess 3 model years old might be about right. I didn't get to drive the used one yet, but it seems like they are at a much better price range for me.
Basically, I think my most realistic short list is the 9-3, Impreza WRX and a Mazda6 (12-15k, less than 5 years old, under 50k miles, stick).

jlawrence01

They had a '04 on the lot w/45k for $15 (170hp 2.0t, leather, moon, etc). That struck me as a lot of depreciation, but I guess 3 model years old might be about right. I didn't get to drive the used one yet, but it seems like they are at a much better price range for me.

I just sent a Saab 9-3 equipped with the moonroof and the 18" chrome wheels to the auction w/ 55k ... I am hoping to get $9.5k for the vehicle but I am not optimistic about that.

I would RUN away from the Saab as quickly as I could. He had the vehicle in the shop at least 25 times in 3 1/2 years on electronics, the moonroof ... never a dull moment with THAT beast. The annual maintenance alone is expensive.

british_rover

Two of my co-workers are former/current SAAB salesman and one of our techs is a former SAAB salesman.

All of them say stay away from the 9-3. The later ones might e better then the older ones but in general they advise against a 9-3. If you want a SAAB you would be better off spending a bit more money on a 9-5.

jlawrence01

On the day that the SAAB driver was to turn in his old vehicle for a new Chrysler Aspen, he called me. The Saab 9-3 would not start and was stuck in his garage ... and he had a flight to catch.

So we conference called the dealership. The driver and the technician are now best buddies - heck, they ought to be. I mean when the technician asks the driver how he liked his Christmas card ...

Great dealership, great service, miserable car. Sent it to Manheim rather than sell it to an employee.

Hopefully, never again.

lilengineerboy

I am willing to accept some increased maintenance as a trade of for a better driving experience, but that sounds rediculous. I think I just need to get the WRX and be done with it.
Now if I can just find one that is in the price range and not trashed by modifications.