What's the best vehicle for my needs?

cccompson

Older European cars can be rather pricey to maintain. My thought here would be to not focus on a particular brand of car but on those equipped with the most safety equipment possible in your price range (front and side impact airbags as well as ABS). It can be a bit tough because both ABS and side impact bags were options on some models and standard on others. A couple of examples: 1999 Nissan Maxima (the former) and 2000 Buick Park Avenue (the latter).

jchan2

I would also recommend a Saab 9-5, but in their later years most European cars are a fortune to maintain.

Other good choices include newer Hondas, Nissans, and Toyotas; I would look for a 2000 Maxima, Accord, or Camry.

jlawrence01

Egads ... safety involves a lot more than the type of vehicle you are driving. It involves MAINTAINING your vehicle and making sure that your tires are in excellent condition. It involves making sure that YOU are in condition to drive at all times. It involves making sure that YOU are attentive to what is going on in front of you and that you are not eating, drinking, operating a cell phone, and talking with three people in the backseat.

The worst accident that I encountered involved one of the "most safe" Volvos ever made. All the safety features were of little use to an inexperienced driver who made a poor decision to pass on a hill on a two lane road while talking with two friends. She collided with a dump truck and the three were lifeflighted to the regional medical centers where they were hospitalized for weeks.

What bothers me is that the same people who go out and buy the cars marketed as being safer (and much of it is marketing) with all the safety devices are the same ones who are not checking their tire pressures, run their treads down to the legal minimums, and drive like idiots because they are "protected."

jeffyscott

I'd look at IIHS crash tests, they are here for current midsize cars:

http://www.iihs.org/ratings/summary.aspx?class=30

You can click on "See earlier model ratings in this vehicle class" to see the older models or click on "vehicle ratings" to go to other categories.

I would also look at their driver death rate reports:

http://www.iihs.org/sr/pdfs/sr4204.pdf

http://www.iihs.org/sr/pdfs/sr4003.pdf

One cost effective option that always comes to mind is the Taurus. These always did well in frontal crash tests and, compared to VW or Volvo, you could get a much newer one of those in your price range.

jchan2

with the Taurus; it's a pretty good deal for the safety equipment you're getting, plus you would be able to afford a newer one.

cccompson

Taurus is fine as long as you're able to sock away money for regular repair work.

jeffyscott

CR rates every model year of Taurus as average or better than average on reliability. In addition, all cars have declining reliability as they age, so a newer Taurus may be just as reliable as a similarly priced, but older, Camry or Accord.

jazkillingjoke

Jeffyscott

Thanks so much for the answer. My wife drives a Mercury Sable which basically is a Ford Taurus I believe and she loves it and feels safe in it, I might go this route.

Thanks again

Patrick

jchan2

Don't forget to look at Mercury Sables as well.

all4

Hello:

I have been searching here on the forums and reading about all the 40+ mpg vehicles. I have read about the tdi diesels...that get big mpg, hondas, prius....on and on.

Now I am really confused.

My situation:

I live in rural TN. (1.5 hrs. N.E. of Nashville) drive only about 6 miles to workplace....but often travel between 30-70 miles on assignments.

Currently have a 1993 chevy c1500 V-6 with 312,000 miles on original engine and all.

wife drives a 2002 yukon xl......so we are wanting a more fuel conservative vehicle.
There are 4 in the family with my wife and I around 6' tall just in case spae inside is questioned.

I would love to see recommendations from the group. We would use this vehicle for our maybe 3-4 hr. trips....relying on the gas hog yukon for the extra long trips.....I guess.

Thanks
Keith

thegraduate

You should check out the Civic, Corolla, and evern midsize vehicles such as Accord. My 4-cyl Accord gets upper 30s in MPG when driving from Birmingham to Gulf Shores regularly, occasionally topping 40 MPG.

With a short 6 mile commute, a hybrid would be better suited, but for highway trips, its hard to beat a midsize car.

qbrozen

Well, a pricerange would be helpful. Also, what are the ages/sizes of your 2 kids?

I mean, I could suggest a Benz E320cdi .... if you want to spend $50k new or $35k used .... or I could suggest a Honda Fit. There is just a WIDE range on such limited information as to your needs/wants.

jchan2

I would suggest a VW Jetta TDI; those get excellent fuel economy, but are diesel, and I don't know about the availability of diesel in your area; I know in my area (Sumner County, TN) diesel is readily available at multiple stations.

Other suggestions in diesel would be the Mercedes-Benz E320 Bluetec, but your closest dealer would be quite a ways away in either Franklin, TN or Bowling Green, KY

A Prius is a good choice, but not necessarily a good long trip car. I would suggest a Nissan Altima, Honda Accord, or Toyota Camry; each car is EPA rated for 31 MPG highway, is quite comfortable (although the Altima is slightly smaller than the other 2, particularly in the backseat)

One step in size down might be worth exploring, although a midsize would be a better car for a trip.
The Honda Civic, Toyota Corolla, and Nissan Sentra all get around 35 or 36 MPG highway, but you sacrifice space on the inside and out..

all4

Thanks for the replies... I do appreciate them.

I would prefer to buy a slightly experienced vehicle...maybe a year or two old...so as for price would like to stay low as possible. say in the lower 10's...

I am not as concerned with mileage.....I bought my pickup with 102k on it and have put 210k more on it.

The 2 kids that would ride in the back are both under 10 years.

Diesel is very available here,...not far from ya tchan2... I am in Macon Co.

thanks for any more help and suggestions

jchan2

I would look at a used VW Jetta TDI, in this case. However, VWs aren't exactly bulletproof cars and you have been fairly warned

You could also try a Ford Fusion; you could probably get a year old one in the $15 or $16K region. Not much less than brand new, but worth a try.

Just get out there and try a few different things that catch your eye. You never know what might appeal to you out there.

thegraduate

Indeed, with windshield pricing at Long Lewis Ford in the Birmingham, Alabama area, a base model Fusion S with stickshift starts below $16,000, no doc fees are used at that dealer.

all4

I will have to get out and kick a few tires....

my niece has a 2006 civic...sort of like the look and seems like they will keep mpg over 30.

I read a little on the tdi vehicles and wasn't sure about a diesel but after studying them... I liked them more.
Would need heated seats though since they don't warm up much from what i read if they sit and idle. It is going to be cold here tonight already 15 degrees. :P

Just got back from a 1100 mile trip in the yukon ....whew...well over $ 250 of gas....ouch.....one of the tank fulls (lol) had it hitting 18mpg. but that wasn't for the whole trip.

jchan2

In that case I'd look at a brand new Civic- Honda's offering decent financing right now on '08 Civics.

And you could probably get it for invoice or invoice plus a coupla hundred bucks...

Corolla will go to clearance soon when the '09s come out (its a redesign) if you like the look of the old one.

qbrozen

I believe a Honda Fit is cheaper than a Civic, however. So that's still my suggestion.

If you really want to save some money, try keeping your eyes peeled for a low miles Protege5.

all4

Thanks again for the replies......

I was just doing some adding up of miles each of the family vehicles travel each year.

Both the pickup and the Yukon travel around 17,500 miles each year so 35k miles combined.... a lot of that is highway..... probably 60% highway....since we are in rural TN... and our travel distance to larger town is 40-50 minutes away.

As for the protege5...looked them up a little on the internet...didn't know they were a Mazda and looked like they were around 25-31mpg.....from what I read.

I continue to try and dig up things on high mileage vehicles here on the forums...still not sure with the miles we drive if just a small 4cyl., or Diesel or hybrid is right for our driving situation.

Thanks folks

jchan2

Since you do mostly highway driving, I would probably recommend either a diesel or a small 4 cylinder. The Hybrids are geared more for stop and go driving, although they do get decent fuel economy on the highway. You might not be able to recoup the Hybrid premium if you do mostly highway driving, since the fuel economy gap between hybrid and small 4 cylinder narrows.

thegraduate

I still say take a look at a midsize car. With the extra torque, they can be geared taller. With taller gearing, they get very close to the same highway mileage as a compact. My typical highway-only mileage is between 36 and 37 MPG in my 2.4L Accord (166 horsepower), and this is with the cruise set at around 75 MPH.

I bet you wouldn't do much better in a subcompact at those speeds, because their much smaller engines have to run at higher RPMs.

For around town driving, a Civic or smaller would be better than a midsize, but for strictly freeway, midsize 4-cylinder cars are where its at!

all4

More great replies thanks....

I have looked at the accords a little but didn't realize that the mpg's were high 30's....sounds really good. Guess the V-6 would be a lot better than the 4cyl. in that size car..

I really would like to hit 35 mpg overall...of course the way we drive around our little rural country side is 45mph-55 mph.... probably 15-20k of those 35k total miles per year are interstate travel(65-75 mph).

thegraduate

Guess the V-6 would be a lot better than the 4cyl. in that size car..

The old EPA ratings for the Accord 4-cylinder (24/34) were much more accurate than the new system based on my driving habits (I'm 20 years old, but don't drive like a madman - usually accelerating keeping RPMs at or below 3,000 as I go up through the gears.

To me, the V6 versions of these sedans are unnecessary. The 4-cylinder version of the Accord is faster than the Civic or Corolla, and MUCH faster than the Fit or Yaris. The V6 Camry and Accord have acceleration numbers that rival that of sports cars from not long ago.

jchan2

with the point that a V6 is not necessary in a midsize sedan. The 4 cylinders are very powerful and fuel efficiency is better w/ the 4 cylinder.

The 4-cylinder in my Altima is plenty powerful.. I can only imagine what the V6 must feel like..

Plus the 4-cylinders are a few thousand dollars cheaper than the V6 models..

all4

Didn't realize the 4cyl. would be that powerful......

So expectations would the higher 30's mpg....on rural roads....50 mph...be out of the question?

In the accord forums I hear a lot of transmission woes....anyone dealing with that say on the 2005 and up models?

Thanks

thegraduate

Any transmission problems that do exist apply to the 2003 and early-build 2004 V6 models only. The 4-cylinder cars' powertrains are pretty bulletproof, although the V6 models are fine outside of those years (and those V6 models from those years got a much-extended warranty on those transmissions).

And, at 50 MPH, with a constant speed (no constant accelerating then decelerating) upper 30s ought to be quite doable!

countrygirl3

ookkkk , need more input , please ! i've researched, test drove, looked until i'm blue in the face. i test drove the 2008 honda cr-v , great vehicle, except for the interior,,,, i felt like i was in a tonka toy! sooo much plastic, nothing exciting about the interior. but i keep chanting fuel mileage and reliability to myself. also test drove a mazda tribute 1 sport. i felt more comfortable as soon as i sat in the seat. i really liked the interior, plenty of room and storage. i actually got a little excited about buying a new vehicle when riding in it.hubby felt the same way but there goes fuel mileage out the window,, looking at maybe 23 to 24 mpg. started reasearching this vehicle,,, couldn't find any reviews for the past couple years and the reviews from 2001 thru 2004 were all complaints of idling, transmission and brake problems.also learned this tribute is basically the same thing as a ford escape.so i reasearch it,, got a little better reviews on it. so if anyone has info or input, lemme hear it! thanks

thegraduate

This vehicle is the same basic vehicle (only cosmetic upgrades for the most part) that debuted something close to 8 years ago. Technology has come a long way since then. In fact, there have been three different generations of CR-V available over the lifespan of the Tribute and Escape.

Technology has come a long way. If you like the Tribute, it ought to be decent in reliability if not excellent, since it has been around SO LONG it should have bugs worked out of it.

Personally, for similar acceleration numbers and much better mileage, I'd go with the CR-V. The interior of the Escape was pretty rough to me - is the Tribute really that much better? The CR-V had, to me, the best interior quality of all the 2008 models on the Honda lot.

qbrozen

The tribute is similar to the escape, yes, but there are some differences. Mainly the suspension. The tribute handles quite a bit better.

I would also suggest checking out the RAV4 and Nissan Rogue. I just read a comparison of, I believe, 9 compact SUVs and the Toyota, Honda, Nissan finished 1, 2, and 3, respectively.

thegraduate

I would also suggest checking out the RAV4 and Nissan Rogue. I just read a comparison of, I believe, 9 compact SUVs and the Toyota, Honda, Nissan finished 1, 2, and 3, respectively.

May I ask where you read it? I'd be interested in seeing it.

qbrozen

oh boy. i knew someone would ask that. ;b

I receive Mototrend, Car & Driver, and Road & Track. So its one of those. ;b

Anyone know offhand which one has Franz Kafka's Garage on the last page? Cause that's the one ... I think.

michaellno

The mini-SUV comparo was in Car and Driver ... February 2008.

I was a bit bummed because the VUE finished back in the pack.

thegraduate

Bummer, I get MT and Automobile. Car and Driver was getting so redundant with MT (or Vice Versa) that I cancelled C&D.

I'll check it out online when its out.

qbrozen

Tell me about it. This month was horrible. All 3 were almost identical. I don't usually find that to be the case, though. I mean, sure, they will often cover 1 or 2 cars the same, but this month I would have to say at least half of each magazine was a copy of the others. Add that to the racing coverage that I skip over and writeups on vehicles I have absolutely no interest in and I think I was left with just the editorials this month.

jeffyscott

Not sure why gas mileage becomes that much of a concern with the Mazda, according to EPA there is only a 1 mpg difference between Tribute and CR-V.

In the 4 cyl with FWD and automatic, EPA rating is 20/27 for CRV and 20/26 for CRV. Based on 45% highway driving, 55% city driving and 15000 miles/year the fuel cost difference is about $90 per year according to fueleconomy.gov.

thegraduate

With a nearly 15-second 0-60 time, I'll avoid the Mazda 4-cyl with all my heart.

The Escape V6 had a 0-60 time around 10 seconds from the last test I recall, which is a little slower than the CR-V. (To be fair, the Escape used to be quicker -around 9 sec to 60- not sure why the newer ones are slower except for the weight gains it has made).

From Motor Trend:
On paper, the V-6's 200-horsepower figure would appear to make it a strong contender--indeed, it's second only to the Saturn VUE's halcyon 250. But further reading finds that its sub-three-liter displacement and low(ish) torque value (193 at a relatively high 4850 rpm) completely undermine things, resulting in acceleration that seems like a perpetual uphill battle. Additional culprits are those widely spaced transmission ratios, co-conspirators in making the Escape our quartet's solitary member not to make the 10-seconds-to-60-mph cut. Consistent in braking and going, it's the lengthiest emergency-stopper, too (139 feet).

The 4-cylinder Escape/Tribute is pathetic in acceleration. Here are words from a Car and Driver test of the Hybrid Escape, in which they acquired a 4-cyl Escape with which to compare it.

For comparison purposes, we acquired a nonhybrid 2.3-liter four-cylinder Escape with four-wheel drive, an automatic, and a bargain price of $23,235. The EPA projects that the conventional Escape will deliver 19 mpg city and 22 mpg highway. Using the same city and highway loops, we got 22 and 26, respectively, but netted a so-so 20 mpg when we put it in the hands of the office leadfoots. What we concluded, however, is that its 14.7-second 0-to-60 time and 20.1-second quarter-mile trip make it a shoe-in for the worst acceleration numbers we've seen this year.

Motor Trend had the 4-cylinder CR-V at less than 10 seconds (although not by much).

So, the Escape V6 is about as quick as the CR-V 4-cyl, while the 4-cylinder Escape/Tribue is a no comparison - the CR-V wins on the power/fuel economy tradeoff in a landslide.

You have to compare apples to apples here, and the Escape/Tribute V6 models are the fair competitors against the Honda 4-cyl.

jeffyscott

Wow, is it really that slow :sick: . Since I don't see the point of them, I am pretty ignorant with regard the world of the fake mini-SUV...or any sort of SUV for that matter..

At least in FWD, it does not weigh all that much more than the Mazda6, which does 0-60 in about 9.5 sec with the 4cyl 2.3 L engine, even by the more conservative CR test method.

In more real world conditions, CR had the CRV at 10.6 sec for 0-60 and 10.2 for the V6 escape. Could not find any test they ever did of the 4 cyl escape/tribute.

thegraduate

Could not find any test (CR) they ever did of the 4 cyl escape/tribute.

They're still waiting to hit 60.

In more real world conditions, CR had the CRV at 10.6 sec for 0-60 and 10.2 for the V6 escape.

If the difference had been less than a second I wouldn't have called attention to it, but the CR-V is really competitive with the 3.0L Escabute (say that out loud, its fun). The 4-cylinder Escabute is competitive with a Schwinn with flat tires.

jchan2

Maybe not higher 30's, but I would say that mid 30's (around 34-36 MPG) is very easily achievable, even with A/C on.

all4

Just watching the BCS Championship football game and here comes a Nissan Altima commercial saying that it beats Accord and Camry on gas mileage.....of course there I guess that is doable...but threw me for a moment.

It showed the 2.5 altima I think...wonder if they compared it to the V-6's.

Thanks

thegraduate

No, the Altima with the CVT is the most efficient midsizer out there (non-hybrid). I remember the numbers being 26/35 up against the Accord's 24/34 for 2007. For 2008, the Altima gets 23/32 and the Accord gets 21/31. Remember, the rating system changed drastically for 2008.

all4

ok...this may be a dumb question considered by some...but always heard the only dumb ques. was one not asked....

What is the cvt on the altima?

I am out of the loop on gas conservation vehicles...been pumping gas in my SUV the last few years....I am changing though... :P

Do the altimas stack up well as far as reliability to the accord or civic?

cccompson

CVT = Continuously Variable Transmission (one that has no certain number of gears)

jeffyscott

the CR-V is really competitive with the 3.0L Escabute

That appears to be true. The mystery is why :confuse: , the weights look to be about the same and the HP difference between the 4 cyl engines is not all that much.

If you compare the same two 4 cyl engines in Accord vs. Fusion or Mazda6 the 0-60 difference is only about 0.5 seconds, based on CR.

thegraduate

If you compare the same two 4 cyl engines in Accord vs. Fusion or Mazda6 the 0-60 difference is only about 0.5 seconds, based on CR.

Do the 2.3L engines in those sedans not have more flexibility from VVT?

jeffyscott

They have VVT in the sedans, AFAIK...is that not the case in escape/tribute?

Even if so, is that enough to account for the magnitude of the difference?

If MT/CD gets 14.7, would expect maybe 15-15.5 from a CR type test. CR has CRV about 1.6 seconds slower than Accord. But 15-15.5 for the Escape would put it at 5.5 to 6 seconds slower than Fusion.

guss

How many speed transmission is in the CR-V? I know the Escape still uses a 4 speed automatic.

thegraduate

The CR-V has had a 5-speed automatic since 2005.

jeffyscott

When the 4 cyl Mazda6 was tested by CR (May 2003) it still had 4 speed, but 0-60 time was 9.6...only a tenth or two slower than their test of the Fusion (Milan, actually). The mazda6 they tested weighed 3150 pounds.

I've tried, unsuccessfully, to find acceration numbers, but an number of other reviews are not so negative about the adequacy of the 4 cyl. I can't imagine the following being consistent with a 15 sec 0-60 time:

The Tribute's 153 horsepower is still not a match for the CR-V's 160 horsepower or the RAV4's 161 horsepower, but at least the Tribute is now in the same ballpark, and at a price comparable with the RAV4 and thousands less than the CR-V.

http://www.canadiandriver.com/testdrives/05tribute_fwd4.htm