Heck, people should just buy what they like and screw trying to justify it based on any objective criteria. Those are all lies we tell ourselves, anyway.
Couldn't agree more. I am all for safety, and for getting what you want in a car. After all, why make this major investment and not end up driving what feels good to you. My only gripe is people who wont consider an otherwise acceptable auto because of "safety ratings" from independent & government sources, i.e crash scores.
Who is to say that if you are involved in a collision, that the safety items you paid extra for will help out in your particular situation? Maybe you pay extra for the side curtain airbags, but you get rear-ended by a dump truck when you stop for unexpected traffic tie-ups?
Maybe my mind would work a little different if I had kids. My car could have optional side curtain airbags, but I don't feel the least bit bad that the particular car I bought doesn't have them. Now I have probably jinxed myself!!
Your outlook definitely changes when you have kids! But I've also never believed in the claptrap that "when your number's up, it's up" (famous last words of seat belt nonusers).
And I watch my rear view mirror very carefully when I have to make an unexpected stop!
210delray, be careful. You almost made me feel normal! I am the baby in family. My youngest older sister had/has 3 children, all girls. My sister wanted to buy a new vehicle to transport the kids & friends to soccer, t-ball, etc. practice. She felt that that safety was the ultimate decision maker between the Malbu and a Yukon. Malibu was enough, but the Yukon was rated better in crash tests. Anyway, she ended up with the Malibu. My only contribution to the decision was why worry about what may happen, VS what will get the job done?
Long story short, My sister died of colon cancer, and suddenly the ultimate relative safety of any given two vehicles became suddenly a very moot point.
No matter how careful you are, no matter how safe you feel, Death is perfectly capable of taking you with him at any time, any place.
Moral? The perceived safety of your vehicle doesn't have diddly to do with your ultimate demise, nessesarlly.
If any BLOOD relative of yours has ever had colon cancer, GET CHECKED RIGHT AWAY!!! My Sister had NO symptoms!! If you are 50 or older, or there is ANY history, GET CHECKED RIGHT AWAY!! Every one dies, but don't die this way if you can help it!! A colonoscopy isn't nearly as bad as the alternative!!
Yeah they do need to work on resale value. As we all know now, GM could of just covered its troubles/recalls up like Toyota, did to keep those resale values up. Hopefully the people responsible at Toyota have to pay. I've heard the Japanese government is going to prosecute the party's involved. :surprise: Well that is good if it really happens. Maybe people will realize that GM, cars aren't as bad after all. They didn't have to scam ya to sell ya one. :P
Well, to get a Volvo equivalent to a Camry, you'd have to get an S80, and even there the Camry is still a bit bigger inside. And an S80, even a 3-year old one, isn't going to come cheap.
http://www.autotrader.com/fyc/vdp.jsp?car_id=205885441 I'm totally NOT making this up. $20,000 for a four year old model with 40K on it. I went for low-mileage. Ones with 50-60K on them are closer to 16-18K. Three year models?
http://www.autotrader.com/fyc/vdp.jsp?car_id=208164340 That one is factory certified. $25K. Three years old, with 38,000 miles. I'd so rather own this compared to a Camry. Total no-brainer when it comes to buying a better car used versus any car new.
http://www.autotrader.com/fyc/vdp.jsp?car_id=205827499 $27,000 is about what a Camry V6 or LeSabre runs. But this is a three year old GS300. RWD, Inline 6 cylinder engine(IIRC), leather, and so on. Amazing car to drive that is worlds better than a Camry. It's also factory certified.
I second your comment about the colonoscopy. I bet there are more than a few guys reading these messages that are having second thoughts of going for a colonoscopy that is already scheduled. Do the scope, guys!!! It isn't that bad, I promise. It is such a good indicator of your health, down there, and the procedure is not the least bit bothersome. The preparations the day before are really the only crummy part about it, and if you can't take THAT, well, you are just totally weak. I promise that any of you can do it, and when you are down you will be proud of yourself for doing it. Be a man and make it happen! Do it for your kids, your wife, your friends, yourSELF!!!
Actually, that was a super-quick check locally near me, in the Los Angeles area. 5 minutes for all three. Plus, those are the asking prices, so there's plenty of haggle-room I'm sure.
Sometimes there are things more important than money, like your children's safety. Especially when they are 3000 miles away, and dad can't be around to check on the car.
My pet peeve about people not buying used really only applies to people who claim that buying new is the better economic decision, or they bought a certain new car because it had low depreciation. If you are buyng a car because of the depreciation risk, then you should always be buying used. A new car is just not the wisest economic decision.
Some of us don't need our car purchase to be a wise economic decision. If we "lose" $10K on our car, it doesn't matter. To others, that really does matter. If it does, but they are buying new, they are following some really bad financial advice.
You have a greater trust in GM, than Toyota? I would just go with what works. Best warranty, best experience, best repairs, best reliability record, best resale, and well best car. Not acknowledging known problems is something domestic car manufactures have never been known to do? Dream on. -Loren
Scott1256, did you read my golf analogy much earlier ?
Imagine GM is Tiger Woods, the no.1 golfer. For a while Tiger lose his touch, and missed many cuts. But recently he is getting more pars and moving back up the ranks.
Imagine the Nissan / Renault pair is say Ernie Els. Ernie Els earlier made an offer to Tiger " Tiger, what if I help you get back your swing, and we buy stakes in each other's earnings. So that we can grow together and enjoy bigger earnings ? "
Now that Tiger (GM) appears to be turning around. Should Tiger say to Ernie " Forget it Ernie " I am getting back my swing touch, and I'll be number 1 again ? Some may say forget Ernie's offer. But not me. Why ?
Look, previously Vijay Singh is no.1. Where is he now ? Tiger could again lose his swing to a formidable opponent like Michelson (say Toyota ?)
Now, unless Ernie is a total fool, if not, I see only benefits to them joining forces. It will be like Tiger and Ernie agrees to work together for all their future practice sessions. Each watching one another's swing faults (For those who does teach another sports, you'll realize you too benefit when you spot the other guy's fault, because you commit them yourselves once in a while)
And Tiger and Ernie agrees to share all future earnings together. Ernie may say buy 20% of Tiger's future earnings, and Tiger bought say also 20% of Ernie's future earnings.
In fact the auto world have more synergies than golf. Look. Renault have plenty of experience in diesel engines that have good emissions and impressive mpg. Nissan (and Renault too) have experience in small cars and CVTs etc. Thus combined they share technologies, experiences and share future platforms, purchases etc.
I heard some people say Nissan and Renault is going down the tubes. I don't think so. All that is happening is Nissan's newer models are late in appearing. That WILL affect sales short term.
It's not because Nissan and Renault's cars are suddenly falling apart on the roads. In fact Toyota's massive recalls recently made Nissan and Renault (also GM's) cars so well made !
Thus I say " Go ahead ! " to this 3 way partnership. Imagine in 1999 if Renault did not enter Nissan. Will Renault be in better shape today ? Same with Nissan. They both benefited from the partnership. Nobody loses. Its a win-win partnership.
Plus the fact that the guys at Nissan Renault including Ghosn have experience in making 2 very diverse companies, a French and a Japanese company work well together (no easy task plus huge Nissan debts in 1999). GM still have tough issues to overcome. Having 2 extra partners will help.
Remember folks, 3 heads are better than 1, assuming the other 2 heads are OK. Unless you think Renault and Nissan are lousy companies.
Are you sure Volvo parts are not as expensive as Mercedes parts? Toyota parts are pretty reasonable, in most cases. Mitsubishi seemed the highest to me. It all depends on the parts needing replacement. An alternator on a Mercedes may run less to replace than one on a Mitsubishi. You'd be amazed. -Loren
If they go into bankruptcy, they will likely still honor the warranty. The workers, former workers at GM, and suppliers may have something to worry about. But the warranty not being covered is not a likely scenario, as it would spell the end to domestic sells. Unless they only sell in China after the bankruptcy. Anyway, they are not in bankruptcy, and are likely a bit touchy about the B word still. Shhhhh. :shades: -Loren
Well owning a vehicle you don't care much in driving, or being paranoid about what could happen in life with this car vs. car "b" is worse that the fate of death. Your already a goner at that point. I pay attention to the safety data, and always have worn seatbelts since my '65 Mustang I bought used. That said, I have no side bags, anti-lock brakes, stability control and all that jazz. When I owned a soft top, I bought a roll bar. Taking reasonable measures makes sense. Yes, it is good that Hyundai has side air bags standard. Would like to take it to the top in safety, while having fun, but for now I can not afford a Mercedes, Porsche or BMW. Perhaps a used one some day. Guess I just keep fingers crossed and drive the little PT for now.
Did you know the death rate in the Miata, SLK, and Z3 cars is lower than many larger sedans? Real life data is interesting. -Loren
In California, it seems that a used popular Japan make of car is as much used as new. I bought a Corolla in '98 for a thousand off the sticker. Used Corollas were about the same price. Now if you are talking new GM cars, especially a luxury model, well most certainly buy it used, unless you have the extra money and the desire for new only. I made that mistake once on a more expensive domestic model of car. Price dropped like a rock. The PT I got pretty cheap, and within a few bucks of a used one with a couple more options on it. Liked the 7 year 70K warranty and the fact it was new and cheap price wise. So low end domestics and Japan cars, I would buy new. The rest perhaps used, though BMW offer of 4 year everything covered warranty sound interesting. Sound interesting, but perhaps not. Used expensive cars still make more sense, though I hear BMW holds value
Used cars cost less to insure, license, and to buy. I agree. But one and two year old Japan makes do not drop in price fast enough to yield any significant savings. Now a DTS Caddy may drop like a rock! -Loren
I know that this does not have anything to do with Warranties, BUT GM's impending financial downfall has absolutely nothing to do with it's Sales! It is the Retirement Packages that were setup years and years ago, long before the Foreign Car invasion! GM tied it's Retirement Packages to it's overall Profit for the year. That has really hit them hard, extremely hard in the wallet, and we all know what that feels like, it is difficult to do business with the Unions (I've ALWAYS been Union, but we must be realistic) that are asking for rediculas Benefits, for their Retired Employees, and this was done so long ago, that people never, ever thought that a huge company like GM would ever get into Housing Mortgages, and many many other things that have absolutely nothing to do with the sale of vehicles, yet these Retired White & Blue Collar workers get a huge chunk of this Profit every year from all the spin offs that GM has now! To give a guy a year end Bonus check for over 7 digits has to hurt!:( In order for GM to stay competitive in the Auto Manufacturing Business, the Unions must giveup some concessions! For these people that had long gone before GM even got into the Housing Market or other areas, they should NOT get a check from GM for Profit made in other areas that they NOW own, otherwise GM will keep going down, and again, this has absolutely nothing to do with Auto Sales! I seen this on the Financial News, and have to believe it, people today are just too greedy, and in the end will put themselves out of business, (and on the street corner selling Pencils) or Retirement Pay, if GM folds under the pressure of people taking Profits from all areas of GM's Businesses! Comon' people, you have to be realistic and think of how much you make while working, and how much your making when you do Retire, and in Retirement (which I am), you must realize that you should not make twice the money then you did while working, and making money for your company! I know most will not see it this way, but reality hurts, and people, myself included, all want to earn more when Retired, then we did while working, but this is just not being responsible, and we all know the Unions will NOT give in an inch/dollar, to save a company, they want it all, and then some!!! :sick:
I am the owner of a 1998 Volvo S70 with 115K now. And yes, the car has had numerous "nuisance" electrical issues(including lights, radio, power antenna), and I was thinking of replacing it with an Asian or (yikes) American make- but everytime I test drive another car and then get back in my Volvo, the Volvo just drives better and feels better. Plus it gets an honest 23-24 mpg city (albeit on their recommendated premium gasoline) and still does not rattle and still "just keeps running". And the seats and controls and drivability is still wonderful. Would I buy another Volvo. Maybe, but the S60 is about $30K (typically, maybe a little less). But if you ask the average Volvo owner if they are happy, I'll bet the answer would be yes. Plus they really are safe vehicles.
but everytime I test drive another car and then get back in my Volvo, the Volvo just drives better and feels better.
My wife bought a 1995 Volvo, first FWD and a Ford Volvo. She's had older Volvo's before, which were troublefree. This car had so many problems even different dealerships couldn't fix it. It was comfortable, ergonomics are excellent, better handling than most American cars but some Taurus influence happening in there.
So, one day she tried a Mercedes demonstrator and said it was by far the best car she has ever driven. I was very dubious about how much better it could be, so I went to try it. It was like entering a whole new world of driving pleasure....just so well engineered. Fortunately, it was about the first year of the lower price C Class (1999), so a new one actually cost about the same as the more expensive demo model. It was a 4 cylinder Kompressor! Wonderful car, and now she is on her second, a 2003 demo wagon. No problems, 5 year bumper to bumper warranty, great handling, and that solid MB feel and ride. She wants the safest vehicle possible (one bad accident with a transport rear ended her when she was in a pick up truck) and I believe the MB is right up there in safety.
GM would have to make a giant leap forward to compare with a vehicle like this one, and a 100,000 mile power train warranty is not enough for us to switch.
I like your analogy in some ways but it doesn't totally apply to the GM/Nissan/Renault deal. I don't think Nissan/Renault is going down the tubes. I just think that GM doesn't need to join forces with anyone right now.
The trouble with mergers is each party in the alliance may count on the others to do essential work. Sometimes this means the important things don't get done. When one leader has his job and prestige on the line he will do all he can to make good things happen.
An independent GM with its mind on a great product line is a powerful player. I don't think any company will again hold the 50%+ market share GM once enjoyed but GM is on track again.
Well, since he ended up being in L.A. for only 4 months, it really didn't matter. He's not into "bling" in any case, and I don't think a Volvo S80 turns many heads in car-crazy L.A., anyway.
Not when there are so many exotics and neat old classics still running around there (when we visited last December).
It's definately a good move by GM, but upping the bumper-to-bumper to 5/50 or 5/60 would really do more to get my attention.
I don't think that the perception of GM's lack of quality is borne of major mechanical failures, but rather the engine keeps running while the car falls apart around it. My Dad is having problems getting a warranty claim approved for an ABS module on his 03 Century with 15,000 miles. Under the new warranty, that still wouldn't be covered.
Well owning a vehicle you don't care much in driving, or being paranoid about what could happen in life with this car vs. car "b" is worse that the fate of death.
I like driving my Camrys, and I don't consider myself paranoid, just rational. BTW, none of my cars has stability control (it was not available or too hard to find at the time), and my '98 Frontier doesn't have side airbags and only rear-wheel ABS.
I'm old enough to have driven some really awful vehicles in hindsight, and the Camry is light years better.
And I agree completely with getting checked for colon cancer. Sadly, my aunt who I mentioned earlier (that bought the '04 Malibu) passed away earlier this year because of cancer (not colon cancer).
Did you know the death rate in the Miata, SLK, and Z3 cars is lower than many larger sedans? Real life data is interesting.
Yes, I'm aware of that. One of the reasons (not the only one of course) is that cars like these are often 2nd, 3rd, or even 4th cars, not daily drivers. And the more expensive and exotic it is, especially if it's a convertible, the more true this is. So their exposure is lower (that is, they spend more time parked safely in their garages). And when they are driven, it's more apt to be on more deserted back roads, not in the daily slog of commuter traffic.
Last, expensive and exotic usually means older and more experienced/responsible owner/drivers, not teeny boppers who just got their licenses!
There will be no "merger" where there is one company. What will happen is that the two companies will see where they could help/share with each other. Maybe Opel needs a XXX in Europe and R-N has extra capacity. Same throughout the whole world.
I doubt R-N will be buying any GM stock. Then again R-N may go look at Ford!
Well alot of americans have put to much faith in Toyota, and have been let down which makes them as bad if not worse because of the "perfect" image they have tried to protray.
Doesn't every mass market car manufacturer portray the same perfect image as Toyota? It's not like GM has ads screaming "Hey... our cars are flawed!!!" As a matter of fact, the drive us here for head to head comparisons. I don't know what they thinks that's getting them but aren't they portraying thay they're the best?
My pet peeve about people not buying used really only applies to people who claim that buying new is the better economic decision, or they bought a certain new car because it had low depreciation.
In most cases I agree, a good used car will end up being a better investment than a new car.
But, in some cases new is better, even if it is a stretch financially. If you are like me or many people who are not knowledgeable about what to look for, if your livelihood is dependent on getting to work on time, if your income is dependent on driving a nice (new) car, if time is money and you don't have the time to test drive cars that are always better in the ad then they are in real life.
If you are good at choosing a good used car, and if having cash is more important than having "the new car feeling and experience" then by all means buy used, but just remember, it isn't the best choice for everyone.
$1500 or so would get you bumper to bumper extended warranty for maybe 72mo/100K miles. More like $500-$600 for powertrain warranty only if you shop around. If you are still under the original 36/36K warranty, you can buy the extended warranty from your favorite dealer or one of the on-line discounters.
You might want to look at the Acadia if you need something between the Sub/Yukon XL size and the Pilot. The Acadia is about the length and width of the std Yukon, just not as tall. Better gas mileage with the 6 sp auto, but of course lesser towing if that is an issue. They are supposed to be out this fall. It is more of a cross over SUV than a truck based. Saturn and Buick will have versions as well (Outlook and Enclave). Just another option.
But, in some cases new is better, even if it is a stretch financially. If you are like me or many people who are not knowledgeable about what to look for, if your livelihood is dependent on getting to work on time, if your income is dependent on driving a nice (new) car, if time is money and you don't have the time to test drive cars that are always better in the ad then they are in real life.
This is why you buy certified versus private party(or private party where you can assess the owners and they have full records from day one that they give you).
There's no way that anyone would have a problem with a 3 year old, looks exactly like new, GS300 with not even 40K on it. $25-27K and you've got a luxury car that impresses. Anything new for that price is hopelessly "rental car" image or something tiny like an A4/VolvoS40/etc.
My experience whenever I've looked at used cars is that they don't depreciate nearly as much as is claimed, especially for Japanese makes that are 2 or 3 years old.
If I can be a new car with zero miles for 20 grand, why would I buy a similar used car with 30,000 miles for 15 grand? Saving 5 grand is not worth it for a car that I can own for 3 less years and drive for 30,000 fewer miles and has less warranty.
I did a search on another site for 2003 Nissan Altima 2.5 S with no more than 40,000 miles. The price range went from $13,000 to $16,000. A basic new 2.5 S could have been had in 03 for $18,000. Where is the incredible savings?
If I can be a new car with zero miles for 20 grand, why would I buy a similar used car with 30,000 miles for 15 grand?
I agree 100%. That is what I find. A used car is half price with the best half of it's life gone.
Having said that, I agree with Plekto that if driving a better vehicle is more important than ultimate reliability, buy a better car used. You will probably come out fine, and you will have a really nice ride. But some people get no enjoyment from their car, and they just want the most dependable, cost efficient car to get them to work and back, or to go shopping in - they should buy a dependable Asian car with a good warranty. And remember, some people get a lot of enjoyment just from saving money, they should also buy Asian.
The other thing is, as has been stated, if you aren't as particular about reliability or joy of driving, buy American....they tend to be pretty solid, should last awhile, and tend to be cheaper from faster depreciation.
I agree. I was looking at a used Acura RSX-S and a used Mini Cooper S. These people are asking insane prices for 02 and 04 model cars, respectively. Like I would spend 90-95 % of the brand new price for a 2-4 year old vehicle. Although now I suppose there might be a good reason if I really wanted one since the RSX is defunct and the Mini is going to a lag charger instead of the preferred supercharger. Fortunately, my spite factor to make sure everyone gets screwed on car values as much as I would over-ride any real desire to get the cars.
I think that the Cadillac STS is a handsome vehicle. Granted it looks like the CTS on steroids but it still has a sense of style to it. When it's equipped right w/polished aluminum wheels, sunroof, and white diamond paint it's the car. For whatever reason I don't see that many on the road.
IMHO, the CTS has some appeal which the STS does not have. They took a more radical design, which the arts & science look is suppose be, tried to extend it out into a lengthened version, while toning down the bold look. What you end up with a car which more expensive and not as visually impacting as its less expensive origins. If I had $50K of more for a car, I would be looking for a BMW or maybe a Mercedes. STS looks to me like a less attractive CTS at a third more the cost. -Loren
Seems like most cars I have owned got close to, or better than the EPA MPG figures, until I got the PT Cruiser. Guess it is the nature of the beast, but the real gas figures are all over the map. Really makes a difference on headwinds, going up hill, amount of spirited driving and such. Rarely will you get the EPA figure. I would say they may have to lower the estimates a bit on this car. I shows an average of 25MPG with 55% city driving. Well, I would say I am more around 24 MPG with 25% city driving. It is possible to baby the car and get close to EPA.
The Corolla, I once owned, and the GM cars I owned with V6 engines got at or better the EPA figures. Had a Miata, and you can push them pretty hard and still get near 27 MPG on spirited driving, and 30 MPG on the freeway. Do the same with the PT and it will suck the gas.
The heavier and blockier the cars build, the more wild the figures will be on gas mileage. I would imagine an SUV is going to be all over the map for gas mileage figures. The one thing my GM could do was to get those EPA gas figures, with some runs besting them by 10%. Seems like the 3.8 V6 of GM always got better gas mileage than the 3.8 of Ford. -Loren
My experience with GM is the same as yours: either at or above EPA estimates.
My experience with my Miatas is 180 degrees from yours. I rarely did better than 20 mpgs. Even on an extended jaunt through the hinterlands of Cheeseland and Minnesota I only managed around 24 mpgs.
I think the EPA does its testing with the top up (it has to be raining pretty hard or awfully cold before I put the top up)
My Dad has the 2000 model year Camry. Pretty good car for a quiet ride and takes the sweeper corners well, with little lean. Gas mileage is OK, but could be better. The four banger is just overwhelmed by the weight. The car has been good reliability wise, yet I would not class it as great, like his 1991 Camry which looked new nine years later. I am currently driving a FWD car, and would like to go back to RWD. Having the Miata for three years was a good reminder of the old days, so now I miss the feel of RWD. It is just so much different.
Never driven the Frontier, but just sitting in one, it feels right for me in the smaller truck range. Also like the Tacoma. Do not care at all for the Chevy Colorado truck look.
If you want a car with all the safety stuff, for less money, the Hyundais look interesting. All are FWD and sort of look the same as the rest = Japan makes. Would I buy one over say the Camry -- maybe, not sure on that. I saw a $20K Camry, with the four cylinder engine and it may be a good compromise to get the 4 vs 6 cylinders of say a Sonata for around the same price. They have increased the power over the years. Personally, I am thinking more of a RWD car though.
Interesting side note on the Sonata. Not only does it have all the protection devices, it does well in rear end collisions, protecting one from a whiplash. Just going by what the crash dummies have to say, you may be as safe in your Sonata as say a Volvo.
Was the 240 Volvo the last of the RWD, with tank thick steel? My aunt has one, and it was solid. Built like the 1940-1950's cars steel wise. -Loren
Oh no. Something was wrong with your Miata. I had a '96 and with the top down, and spirited driving got up to 27. Rarely got 25 MPG. Top up freeway was 29-30 MPG. I changed my plug wires to NGK blue, as a side note. Original ones wear quickly. -Loren
Here's my beef with the Sonata. Hyundai has put vast numbers into rental. Many w/ sunroof and leather. It's a great package but we all know what rental fleet sales do to a brand. I don't know their reasoning for so much fleet. IMO, I thought the car would have been in short supply given the product.
Ford CEO Mulally could earn nearly $35 million this year Former Boeing exec gets $2 million annual salary, $18.5 million in signing bonus and compensation
Could be fewer dealerships for Hyundai. Could be the name association with troubled products, though the big two have had their share. Could be some of the dealerships don't look upscale enough to attract buyers looking for classy showrooms and repair shops. In my area one dealer looks a bit easy-credit-cheapie, while the other dealership looks more on par with first rate operations. Not to say one is in reality any better than the other. Maybe it is the gas mileage concerns, and people are buying say a four cylinder Camry and don't mind that it costs the same or more than the Sonata with a V6 and stability control and anti-whiplash and that good stuff. And it could be the Sonata is seen as not on par with the Japan makes. The reviews, taken as a whole seem to indicate that the Sonata is a lot of car for the money, but not the same as the Accord and Camry.
They are trying to push the numbers up, up and away and get the Sonata name out there, but it does really hurt to see it done the rental fleet way. If I compromise and buy a FWD car again, in a sedan, I would consider the Sonata. It is not like a Sonata, Camry or Accord is going to handle like a BMW. At which point the smooth ride, warranty, room, gas mileage and other things would get bumped up the list as priorities. Looks wise, the Camry and Fusion seem to be nearer the top, then it is all the rest. Oh yeah, the new Aura, yet another FWD car. Parts is parts. Have not test driven a Volvo. Seems like they get bad marks for reliability every year in Consumer Reports. The S40 looked to me a bit interesting --- alas yet another FWD car. How again is Volvo said to be better than the rest? Though I may not really need a car so big as a Charger, it seems like a pretty good value in the $22K +/- range.
May even go out on the limb and buy a German car. Like the RWD and in the case of BMW their inline six engine. If I keep my cheapie Chrysler for everyday driving, and buy a second car used, I may consider the two little sports cars from Germany, the SLK and the Z3. Anyone had much experience with the Kompressor engine for reliability, or the i4 BMW engines? -Loren
Wow, that's enough money, he can now afford to buy a Jaguar! So they have at least one sold - way to go Ford! Well , that is unless he buys himself a BMW, Porsche or Mercedes.
Comments
Couldn't agree more. I am all for safety, and for getting what you want in a car. After all, why make this major investment and not end up driving what feels good to you. My only gripe is people who wont consider an otherwise acceptable auto because of "safety ratings" from independent & government sources, i.e crash scores.
Who is to say that if you are involved in a collision, that the safety items you paid extra for will help out in your particular situation? Maybe you pay extra for the side curtain airbags, but you get rear-ended by a dump truck when you stop for unexpected traffic tie-ups?
Maybe my mind would work a little different if I had kids. My car could have optional side curtain airbags, but I don't feel the least bit bad that the particular car I bought doesn't have them. Now I have probably jinxed myself!!
And I watch my rear view mirror very carefully when I have to make an unexpected stop!
I am the baby in family. My youngest older sister had/has 3 children, all girls. My sister wanted to buy a new vehicle to transport the kids & friends to soccer, t-ball, etc. practice.
She felt that that safety was the ultimate decision maker between the Malbu and a Yukon. Malibu was enough, but the Yukon was rated better in crash tests.
Anyway, she ended up with the Malibu. My only contribution to the decision was why worry about what may happen, VS what will get the job done?
Long story short, My sister died of colon cancer, and suddenly the ultimate relative safety of any given two vehicles became suddenly a very moot point.
No matter how careful you are, no matter how safe you feel,
Death is perfectly capable of taking you with him at any time, any place.
Moral? The perceived safety of your vehicle doesn't have diddly to do with your ultimate demise, nessesarlly.
GET CHECKED RIGHT AWAY!!!
My Sister had NO symptoms!!
If you are 50 or older, or there is ANY history, GET CHECKED RIGHT AWAY!!
Every one dies, but don't die this way if you can help it!!
A colonoscopy isn't nearly as bad as the alternative!!
Rocky
http://www.autotrader.com/fyc/vdp.jsp?car_id=205885441
I'm totally NOT making this up. $20,000 for a four year old model with 40K on it. I went for low-mileage. Ones with 50-60K on them are closer to 16-18K. Three year models?
http://www.autotrader.com/fyc/vdp.jsp?car_id=208164340
That one is factory certified. $25K. Three years old, with 38,000 miles. I'd so rather own this compared to a Camry. Total no-brainer when it comes to buying a better car used versus any car new.
http://www.autotrader.com/fyc/vdp.jsp?car_id=205827499
$27,000 is about what a Camry V6 or LeSabre runs. But this is a three year old GS300. RWD, Inline 6 cylinder engine(IIRC), leather, and so on. Amazing car to drive that is worlds better than a Camry. It's also factory certified.
I second your comment about the colonoscopy. I bet there are more than a few guys reading these messages that are having second thoughts of going for a colonoscopy that is already scheduled. Do the scope, guys!!! It isn't that bad, I promise. It is such a good indicator of your health, down there, and the procedure is not the least bit bothersome. The preparations the day before are really the only crummy part about it, and if you can't take THAT, well, you are just totally weak. I promise that any of you can do it, and when you are down you will be proud of yourself for doing it. Be a man and make it happen! Do it for your kids, your wife, your friends, yourSELF!!!
Take care of yourselves, friends.
My pet peeve about people not buying used really only applies to people who claim that buying new is the better economic decision, or they bought a certain new car because it had low depreciation. If you are buyng a car because of the depreciation risk, then you should always be buying used. A new car is just not the wisest economic decision.
Some of us don't need our car purchase to be a wise economic decision. If we "lose" $10K on our car, it doesn't matter. To others, that really does matter. If it does, but they are buying new, they are following some really bad financial advice.
but the Camry? bling? buhlunk....
I wish we were seeing more used GS450H's out there. I need the price to drop on those. That would be a sweet ride.
-Loren
Imagine GM is Tiger Woods, the no.1 golfer. For a while Tiger lose his touch, and missed many cuts. But recently he is getting more pars and moving back up the ranks.
Imagine the Nissan / Renault pair is say Ernie Els. Ernie Els earlier made an offer to Tiger " Tiger, what if I help you get back your swing, and we buy stakes in each other's earnings. So that we can grow together and enjoy bigger earnings ? "
Now that Tiger (GM) appears to be turning around. Should Tiger say to Ernie " Forget it Ernie " I am getting back my swing touch, and I'll be number 1 again ? Some may say forget Ernie's offer. But not me. Why ?
Look, previously Vijay Singh is no.1. Where is he now ? Tiger could again lose his swing to a formidable opponent like Michelson (say Toyota ?)
Now, unless Ernie is a total fool, if not, I see only benefits to them joining forces. It will be like Tiger and Ernie agrees to work together for all their future practice sessions. Each watching one another's swing faults (For those who does teach another sports, you'll realize you too benefit when you spot the other guy's fault, because you commit them yourselves once in a while)
And Tiger and Ernie agrees to share all future earnings together. Ernie may say buy 20% of Tiger's future earnings, and Tiger bought say also 20% of Ernie's future earnings.
In fact the auto world have more synergies than golf. Look. Renault have plenty of experience in diesel engines that have good emissions and impressive mpg. Nissan (and Renault too) have experience in small cars and CVTs etc. Thus combined they share technologies, experiences and share future platforms, purchases etc.
I heard some people say Nissan and Renault is going down the tubes. I don't think so. All that is happening is Nissan's newer models are late in appearing. That WILL affect sales short term.
It's not because Nissan and Renault's cars are suddenly falling apart on the roads. In fact Toyota's massive recalls recently made Nissan and Renault (also GM's) cars so well made !
Thus I say " Go ahead ! " to this 3 way partnership. Imagine in 1999 if Renault did not enter Nissan. Will Renault be in better shape today ? Same with Nissan. They both benefited from the partnership. Nobody loses. Its a win-win partnership.
Plus the fact that the guys at Nissan Renault including Ghosn have experience in making 2 very diverse companies, a French and a Japanese company work well together (no easy task plus huge Nissan debts in 1999). GM still have tough issues to overcome. Having 2 extra partners will help.
Remember folks, 3 heads are better than 1, assuming the other 2 heads are OK. Unless you think Renault and Nissan are lousy companies.
-Loren
-Loren
Did you know the death rate in the Miata, SLK, and Z3 cars is lower than many larger sedans? Real life data is interesting.
-Loren
Used cars cost less to insure, license, and to buy. I agree. But one and two year old Japan makes do not drop in price fast enough to yield any significant savings. Now a DTS Caddy may drop like a rock!
-Loren
My wife bought a 1995 Volvo, first FWD and a Ford Volvo. She's had older Volvo's before, which were troublefree. This car had so many problems even different dealerships couldn't fix it. It was comfortable, ergonomics are excellent, better handling than most American cars but some Taurus influence happening in there.
So, one day she tried a Mercedes demonstrator and said it was by far the best car she has ever driven. I was very dubious about how much better it could be, so I went to try it. It was like entering a whole new world of driving pleasure....just so well engineered. Fortunately, it was about the first year of the lower price C Class (1999), so a new one actually cost about the same as the more expensive demo model. It was a 4 cylinder Kompressor! Wonderful car, and now she is on her second, a 2003 demo wagon. No problems, 5 year bumper to bumper warranty, great handling, and that solid MB feel and ride. She wants the safest vehicle possible (one bad accident with a transport rear ended her when she was in a pick up truck) and I believe the MB is right up there in safety.
GM would have to make a giant leap forward to compare with a vehicle like this one, and a 100,000 mile power train warranty is not enough for us to switch.
2017 MB E400 , 2015 MB GLK350, 2014 MB C250
The trouble with mergers is each party in the alliance may count on the others to do essential work. Sometimes this means the important things don't get done. When one leader has his job and prestige on the line he will do all he can to make good things happen.
An independent GM with its mind on a great product line is a powerful player. I don't think any company will again hold the 50%+ market share GM once enjoyed but GM is on track again.
Not when there are so many exotics and neat old classics still running around there (when we visited last December).
I don't think that the perception of GM's lack of quality is borne of major mechanical failures, but rather the engine keeps running while the car falls apart around it. My Dad is having problems getting a warranty claim approved for an ABS module on his 03 Century with 15,000 miles. Under the new warranty, that still wouldn't be covered.
I like driving my Camrys, and I don't consider myself paranoid, just rational. BTW, none of my cars has stability control (it was not available or too hard to find at the time), and my '98 Frontier doesn't have side airbags and only rear-wheel ABS.
I'm old enough to have driven some really awful vehicles in hindsight, and the Camry is light years better.
And I agree completely with getting checked for colon cancer. Sadly, my aunt who I mentioned earlier (that bought the '04 Malibu) passed away earlier this year because of cancer (not colon cancer).
Yes, I'm aware of that. One of the reasons (not the only one of course) is that cars like these are often 2nd, 3rd, or even 4th cars, not daily drivers. And the more expensive and exotic it is, especially if it's a convertible, the more true this is. So their exposure is lower (that is, they spend more time parked safely in their garages). And when they are driven, it's more apt to be on more deserted back roads, not in the daily slog of commuter traffic.
Last, expensive and exotic usually means older and more experienced/responsible owner/drivers, not teeny boppers who just got their licenses!
I doubt R-N will be buying any GM stock. Then again R-N may go look at Ford!
Rocky
3 Camrys, 9 years, 2 recalls. Minimal unforeseen repair costs. Zero breakdowns. That's my experience.
In most cases I agree, a good used car will end up being a better investment than a new car.
But, in some cases new is better, even if it is a stretch financially. If you are like me or many people who are not knowledgeable about what to look for, if your livelihood is dependent on getting to work on time, if your income is dependent on driving a nice (new) car, if time is money and you don't have the time to test drive cars that are always better in the ad then they are in real life.
If you are good at choosing a good used car, and if having cash is more important than having "the new car feeling and experience" then by all means buy used, but just remember, it isn't the best choice for everyone.
2017 MB E400 , 2015 MB GLK350, 2014 MB C250
This is why you buy certified versus private party(or private party where you can assess the owners and they have full records from day one that they give you).
There's no way that anyone would have a problem with a 3 year old, looks exactly like new, GS300 with not even 40K on it. $25-27K and you've got a luxury car that impresses. Anything new for that price is hopelessly "rental car" image or something tiny like an A4/VolvoS40/etc.
If I can be a new car with zero miles for 20 grand, why would I buy a similar used car with 30,000 miles for 15 grand? Saving 5 grand is not worth it for a car that I can own for 3 less years and drive for 30,000 fewer miles and has less warranty.
I did a search on another site for 2003 Nissan Altima 2.5 S with no more than 40,000 miles. The price range went from $13,000 to $16,000. A basic new 2.5 S could have been had in 03 for $18,000. Where is the incredible savings?
I agree 100%. That is what I find. A used car is half price with the best half of it's life gone.
Having said that, I agree with Plekto that if driving a better vehicle is more important than ultimate reliability, buy a better car used. You will probably come out fine, and you will have a really nice ride. But some people get no enjoyment from their car, and they just want the most dependable, cost efficient car to get them to work and back, or to go shopping in - they should buy a dependable Asian car with a good warranty. And remember, some people get a lot of enjoyment just from saving money, they should also buy Asian.
The other thing is, as has been stated, if you aren't as particular about reliability or joy of driving, buy American....they tend to be pretty solid, should last awhile, and tend to be cheaper from faster depreciation.
2017 MB E400 , 2015 MB GLK350, 2014 MB C250
I agree. I was looking at a used Acura RSX-S and a used Mini Cooper S. These people are asking insane prices for 02 and 04 model cars, respectively. Like I would spend 90-95 % of the brand new price for a 2-4 year old vehicle. Although now I suppose there might be a good reason if I really wanted one since the RSX is defunct and the Mini is going to a lag charger instead of the preferred supercharger. Fortunately, my spite factor to make sure everyone gets screwed on car values as much as I would over-ride any real desire to get the cars.
-Loren
The Corolla, I once owned, and the GM cars I owned with V6 engines got at or better the EPA figures. Had a Miata, and you can push them pretty hard and still get near 27 MPG on spirited driving, and 30 MPG on the freeway. Do the same with the PT and it will suck the gas.
The heavier and blockier the cars build, the more wild the figures will be on gas mileage. I would imagine an SUV is going to be all over the map for gas mileage figures. The one thing my GM could do was to get those EPA gas figures, with some runs besting them by 10%. Seems like the 3.8 V6 of GM always got better gas mileage than the 3.8 of Ford.
-Loren
My experience with my Miatas is 180 degrees from yours. I rarely did better than 20 mpgs. Even on an extended jaunt through the hinterlands of Cheeseland and Minnesota I only managed around 24 mpgs.
I think the EPA does its testing with the top up (it has to be raining pretty hard or awfully cold before I put the top up)
Never driven the Frontier, but just sitting in one, it feels right for me in the smaller truck range. Also like the Tacoma. Do not care at all for the Chevy Colorado truck look.
If you want a car with all the safety stuff, for less money, the Hyundais look interesting. All are FWD and sort of look the same as the rest = Japan makes. Would I buy one over say the Camry -- maybe, not sure on that. I saw a $20K Camry, with the four cylinder engine and it may be a good compromise to get the 4 vs 6 cylinders of say a Sonata for around the same price. They have increased the power over the years. Personally, I am thinking more of a RWD car though.
Interesting side note on the Sonata. Not only does it have all the protection devices, it does well in rear end collisions, protecting one from a whiplash. Just going by what the crash dummies have to say, you may be as safe in your Sonata as say a Volvo.
Was the 240 Volvo the last of the RWD, with tank thick steel? My aunt has one, and it was solid. Built like the 1940-1950's cars steel wise.
-Loren
-Loren
yes
Former Boeing exec gets $2 million annual salary, $18.5 million in signing bonus and compensation
They are trying to push the numbers up, up and away and get the Sonata name out there, but it does really hurt to see it done the rental fleet way. If I compromise and buy a FWD car again, in a sedan, I would consider the Sonata. It is not like a Sonata, Camry or Accord is going to handle like a BMW. At which point the smooth ride, warranty, room, gas mileage and other things would get bumped up the list as priorities. Looks wise, the Camry and Fusion seem to be nearer the top, then it is all the rest. Oh yeah, the new Aura, yet another FWD car. Parts is parts. Have not test driven a Volvo. Seems like they get bad marks for reliability every year in Consumer Reports. The S40 looked to me a bit interesting --- alas yet another FWD car. How again is Volvo said to be better than the rest? Though I may not really need a car so big as a Charger, it seems like a pretty good value in the $22K +/- range.
May even go out on the limb and buy a German car. Like the RWD and in the case of BMW their inline six engine. If I keep my cheapie Chrysler for everyday driving, and buy a second car used, I may consider the two little sports cars from Germany, the SLK and the Z3. Anyone had much experience with the Kompressor engine for reliability, or the i4 BMW engines?
-Loren