Did you recently take on (or consider) a loan of 84 months or longer on a car purchase?
A reporter would like to speak with you about your experience; please reach out to PR@Edmunds.com by 7/22 for details.
A reporter would like to speak with you about your experience; please reach out to PR@Edmunds.com by 7/22 for details.
Options
Comments
Geo is a bad example, did you know the Geo Prizm = Toyota Corolla? They're clones, basically.
How many used Hyundai or kia you see on road? Not as many as Toyota, Ford, GM, BMW, Honda.
If you have money ($30-35K), have you buy one? or what have you buy?
Hyundai has been selling large numbers for a lot less time than GM, Honda, etc, so the question is pointless. If you want to look at the past, you better include GM in there too buddy boy - they were crap for the most part in the mid-90s and earlier.
If you have money ($30-35K), have you buy one?
I wouldn't spend that much on a car period. They're all depreciating assets. I'd look seriously at a Sonata; I did 2 years ago. I didn't care for the interior design, but found no drastic flaws in the vehicle itself. I liked the Accord's interior, and chose it.
So why do you give people advice to buy Hyundai? It's easy to spend the money is not belong to you.
I have friend who bought Sonata, then couple years later he had so kind different a problems, he hated it. It was good for less two years. Almost same story about Kia.
I tell you if I have 22-30K for sedan I'll buy brand new VW passat or used Volvo.
From CUV 30-35K. I'll still buy a Acadia, or CX-9, or used Volvo.
When I decided to buy a small or mid-sized SUV last year to replace a company-owned Volvo XC90 AWD (after I left that job), I considered everything on the market for $35,000 or less. I looked at and test drove the Jeep Grand Cherokee Limited, Chevy Equinox and Tahoe, GMC Acadia, Honda CR-V, Dodge Nitro, Mitsubishi Outlander, Toyota Highlander, Mazda CX-7, and many others. I bought a brand new, fresh off the truck Hyundai Santa Fe Limited AWD and couldn't be happier with it. I've owned it for nearly 9 months now and have driven it roughly 7000 miles with ZERO problems. This Hyundai has absolutely nothing to be ashamed of.
Pontiac was and will produce good sedans.I can agree with chevy, but not all the Caprice, Corvette and Impala for most part was good cars. GEO, yea it is.
I think Edge, Murano, Tribeca or 08' Vue better choice than a Santa Fe.
I choice the car is not just reliability, but also driving experience.
that still does not mean your attempts to communicate what is YOUR logic don't appear to be flawed. and no I'm not criticizing your grammar in any way shape or form.
as far as your friend goes, I imagine you could make another friend who drives said same ride who is still driving it 100k + miles later.
I can go find people who can say the same things about their acadia who have had them for less than a year if you want. does it really mean anything, not necessarily. you simply take your chances being as diligent about making a decision you can at the time. the rest is simply noise veiled as something claiming to be important to make you feel better about your decision.
But the buying a car it's investing a lot money to unappreciated product. It's your money and you can spend them whereever you're wanted.
I think Korean car makers far from the make good cars. They made better appearance, but not better car. It's still feeling cheap inside and outside for $30K.
why do you think people paying more then $50k for BMW sedan. Is it better car then Honda? I'm sure better car inside and outside, it has something that other car doesn't. That something hyundai is missing, compare to even to GM cars.
Had I been in the market for a $45,000 SUV I would have definitely considered the XC90. For only $27,000, though, I got very close with my Santa Fe. It's a great SUV.
We are all know car makers like BMW, GM, Ford, Mercedes make their car forever
Durable GM leather?. Our 2000 Yukon XL had splits in both leather front seats within 4 years. I was shocked at how thin the leather was. DW and I are not big either! As to the rest? All the snap on plastic trim around the seat rails were busted off in 2 years. Rear window defroster never worked reliably after one year. ABS motor in the 2000 and the 2004 went after 3 years (just long enough to be beyond warranty) The vehicle is the only one which truly fits our needs for utility,space and towing capacity - that's why we bought them. A neighbour loves their Acadia and I looked at the Buick, but DW has vetoed the Lamdas due to our experience with GM reliability.
You knock KIA and Hyundai as if there's a scientifically proven advantage to owning a GM. Evidence is simply not there to support that assertion.
As to the others - the folks I know who drive Bimmers? All have/had issues with them becoming expensive repair shop Princesses by the age of 5. The actual engine and the leather lasts, no doubt, but there's a lot more to today's cars than that.
What do u prefer more between CX-9,TX and Veracruz? So make up your mind.
By the way for almost 5 month of owning the Acadia, I have zero problems. So don't tell me about GM reliability again. It's full of ............
I don't beleive in some issues the owner had. You can say about any car had problems.( veracruz has cases of leaks inside) But numbers don't lie, the Acadia most saalling CUV in 7 pass class.
The Taurus X is likely the most practical. It's well priced after discounts, and has great visibility.
The CX9 is easy - it's the sportiest of the 3 by far. It would be my personal choice among the 3, but my wife might choose differently. Oddly enough it lacks comfort IMHO, the console rubs my right knee the wrong way and the heated seats need more settings that hold certain temperatures. It could also use a brighter NAV screen.
The Veracruz has the most comfortable seats, and the best leather I've sampled in the entire segment. Fit for a King, to be on his throne. It's also well priced after discounts.
We'll have to disagree there. The Grand-Am, the Sunbird/Sunfire... garbage as far as I'm concerned.
Back tot he topic at hand.
I have read different opinion, that you can't find more comfortable position and low visibility. In the end it's Hyundai. Crapy third row seat. Underpower.
Same about Mazda. Good design and sporty but low visibility, rear parking unreal difficult. Crapy third row seat.
TX is old design. DVD drop down sreen block rear view.
And?
As to your comment, "In the end it's a Hyundai", I suggest that you consider the car on its own merits and not on the reputation of cars that were built 20 years ago. They've come a long way since then.
Indeed. If one can look past GM's dark days (and there were plenty), they can overlook Hyundai's dark days as well. Well, I hope.
That didn't exactly get rants and raves.
Would it be fair for someone who owned a Relay to have a bias against Saturn, and dismiss the Acadia/Outlook?
That's not fair, the Outlook is a huge improvement over the older, simply uncompetitive Relay. You gave GM another chance.
To not give Hyundai that chance just shows a bias.
you want "facts" or as much as they can be;
complete article
(http://www.autooninfo.net/NAEd200801HyundaiReliabilityVsGMReliability.htm)
"By Consumer Reports' Reliability-Verdict history for model years 1998 to 2007, Hyundai Motor Company dramatically distanced itself from General Motors Corporation. Of Hyundai's 54 used-car reliability verdicts for this period, 14.8% were much better than average, 31.5% were better than average, 37.0% were average, 13.0% were below average, and only 3.7% were much below average. By contrast, of General Motors Corporation's 579 used-car reliability verdicts (for all of its models save those from its Saab line and the two engineered by Toyota), only 0.3% were much better than average, only 10.2% were better than average, and 45.1% were average, but 19.7% were worse than average and a whopping 24.7% were much worse than average. If the Saab line is included in the count, of GM's 604 used-car reliability verdicts, only 0.5% were much better than average, only 9.8% were better than average, and 45.2% were average, but 20.0% were worse than average and a whopping 24.5% were much worse than ave..."
and no I don't like CR but It seems their process is consistent and there are others that agree to support this.
a 20yr old hyundai or a 20yr old gm J-car is a POS every day of the week even when sitting shiney and new on the showroom floor.
to equate that to anything that hyunai, gm or otherwise is making today is a patently false and inaccurrate assessment of the cuv offerings from each.
tell all the lambda owners that bought an '07 well I don't have any problem's like you are with my '08 therefore it is the best cuv being made today and see what they tell you. your day will come that it will fail you in some regard costing you time, money or both just like it will for the rest of us.
you simply take your chances on the day you write the check and pick up the keys to drive it away.
for you it's the best, to me you could not be more wrong, neither of us are "right" plain and simple no matter how many time you say you are.
and yes I voted with my wallet, bought a FS in '05 before your favorites showed up and still have no regrets despite them showing up to the party late. and that's 30k problem free miles later.
go start the Iloveallthingsgmlambdadespitetheproblemsotherownershave.com site and sit on that mountain top and see how many likeminded there are out there. and may i suggest don't quit the day job to find this new fortune just yet.
All of these vehicle have faults. Let's not point out that the TX has no groundclearance and Ford is just barely getting it right on their second try after flopping with the FS or that the CX-9 gets bad mileage and drives rough or that the VC has the least amount of cargo space in the class.
So I guess if all these problems were solved then the Market would be perfect.
You haven't even sat in the lambdas? Maybe that's why you dislike them. You've never even sat in one. Most of us here actuall have- which allows us to say "I don't like this vehicle because... or this vehcle doesn't do this as well as this vehicle".
What's the point in stating that? None of these CUVs are intended for any type of off-roading where ground clearance is a factor. So why knock the TX for it? :confuse:
or that the CX-9 gets bad mileage and drives rough
Now that can be argued along with the portliness of the Lambdas. All three are faults and could have easily been corrected during development.
or that the VC has the least amount of cargo space in the class.
Don't see how that's a fault of the mfr either. One will always be bigger or smaller than the other. If two competing vehicles come out of the factory with the same specs then someone had a spy in the other's bldg.
The Lambdas are still hits in my book too but they are far from perfect. Finetuning the powertrain and/or shaving some weight off would definitely make them more appealing. I stated the stuff above because I don't feel adding ground clearance or a couple of inches to the TX and VC respectively will change demand for either one. If their mfrs want to make them hits they need to restyle both of them IMO. Big wagons aren't loved anymore no matter how much sense they make to buy, and the VC, while nice inside I hear, looks like what an RX350 and a 2006 Subaru Tribeca would have as a child. :surprise:
IMO, looks go a long way in this class. People didn't start buying SUVs because minivans were cool to be seen in you know.
I think GM's leather has improved in the past few years. And reliability king Honda's leather wears and looks terrible.
You knock KIA and Hyundai as if there's a scientifically proven advantage to owning a GM.
Many "knock" GM, but their reliability has been as good as Huyndai's lately.
But the G8 should break new ground.
As you said, back to the topic.
I'll have to disagree- I think the VC is sportier as the CX-9 is slower than the VC and the TX, and I think the VC handles better.
These stats tell a different story. According to Edmunds...
0-60
VC: 8.3
CX-9 7.4
1/4 mile
VC:16.6
CX-9: 15.9
Slalom
VC: 60.5 mph (Not limited by DSC and equipped with AWD)
CX-9: 58.3 mph (Limited due to DSC and was only FWD)
Skid Path
VC: .80g's (AWD)
CX-9:.79g's (FWD)
In the editors blog, james Riswick had this to say about the CX-9.
"The sports car of large crossovers did a commendable job at the track. In case you're wondering, it wasn't that much better than the Enclave. Specifically, the slalom speeds were basically equal. I've included the Buick's numbers for comparison purposes (in gray), but remember that numbers tell only so much of the story. In real-world driving, the CX-9 feels remarkably more agile thanks to its excellent steering, lighter weight and firm suspension."
"Firm pedal and rapid ABS cycle make for an uneventful series of stops."
This about the VC
"Very spongy brake pedal goes nearly to the floor. Lots of ABS shudder and forward pitch. Brakes began fading and system didn't have enough power to enlist ABS on 3rd acceleration run's stop from 90 mph."
That bit about the VC scares me. What if that were a real world situation? Forget sporty, it's not even safe. The CX-9 does not pitch forward, for Mazda uses an advanced ABS/EBD system and pulls the vehicle down on all 4 wheels. It will never do a nose dive.
8.3?! That make the VC slower than the Acadia! Something isn't right about those numbers.
I dislike this about Fords. THe CX-9 doesn't do it. Niether does Honda. The Lambdas doesn't too much either. Come on Ford!
Exactly what I'm saying. All of these CUVs have a long way to go for perfect. But Freealfas believes the lambdas are a curse sent to earth from below.
Don't see how that's a fault of the mfr either. One will always be bigger or smaller than the other. If two competing vehicles come out of the factory with the same specs then someone had a spy in the other's bldg.
Oh that's definitely the MFR's fault. Hyundai could have made that better. And a spy in the building? Thats not how Toyota does it (yet it gets done).
wow, the idea of you and I in the same place...hmmmm...
Because there are best in the class for current day and some fellow members don't want admit that. Bigger, easy access to third row seat, more Utility vehicle, good sales numbers, very good crash testing, a lot options to choose.
And y'all would probably have a great time in person chatting about all the ins and outs of the cars on display.
Unfortunately, a few of y'all have spent part of the day yakking about each other's posts instead of the cars, so I've cleaned house a bit. If you want a copy of your now removed missive, please let me know.
Back to the crossovers (PLEASE!).
which opinion are you going to go with;
this one posted today,
I'm wondering why the Pacifica isn't discussed here more. Really I'm wondering why it never did well. I do understand that is was overpriced when it entered the market and that it needed more power, but the rest was on point. The third row was small- but there weren't many SUVs out there with good third rows. I consider it the last luury model out of Chrysler ( before Chryslere's interiors became crap). Though Chrysler took forever and a week to bring it to market, I though it was a good competitor
or this one;
http://townhall-talk.edmunds.com/direct/view/.f113b56/2
#10 of 23 Re: 2009 Dodge Journey [qbrozen] by albook Aug 30, 2007 (12:37 pm)Save | Reply
Total Posts: 1042
Member Since:
Apr 23, 2005
Replying to: qbrozen (Aug 29, 2007 9:07 am)
"The interior of the Pac is far from a letdown. I have yet to have someone in ours who did NOT comment how luxurious it is. Have you driven the competition? We liked our Pilot, but it comes nowhere near the refinement of the Pac on interior comfort. I agree that the interior dimensions in terms of cabin height leave a bit to be desired. Its not as open and airy as many mid-sized utes. And maybe that was its downfall."
Is any of that based in fact? Let me help you out- NO. The interior fails to meet todays standards (I'll giv ethat one a break- it is 5 years old) Both the interior and exterior are dated. Comfort is terrible. Chrysler should just discontinue it because they won't be selling very many more. Any one looking at this versus the Buick Enclave will turn their noses up after just sitting inisde this!
We can gripe all we want about if it was a failure or not, but there is one factor that determines it-sales. Thankyou!!!
That's why this new crossover has to be what the Pacifica wasn't- competitive.
so we can know where you stand on you thoughts regarding this CUV since you wanted to engage in converation about it today.
Well, actually it's not full of .... . Rather it's an honest report of our experience. We've owned 2 Toyos, 2 Nissans, a Honda, a Subaru and a VW in addition to two GMCs. Either of the GM products has had more problems per year of ownership than all the others combined. For the record, that's @45 vehicle-years of the imports with a grand total of 4 problems of any kind versus 8 vehicle years for GM with 5 obvious problems requiring repair and many more "minor issues" I didn't even relate. None of our other vehicles had issues with trim parts breaking, interior rust soaking through the carpet or other issues that our GM dealer informed us was "wear and tear".
I have no idea what the Hyundai experience might be from a reliability or dealer service standpoint. I do know that our GM experience fit the unreliable stereotype, and is not "full of ...." unless you mean "full of genuine and honest experience".
I am not so sure on this. I think the things that people value in a car (safety, noise reduction, thunk of door, electronic everything, etc...) cause the weight to go up. I am sure GM wanted to keep costs down so they were limited in the material to use. You can't go using carbon fiber for everything and expect to get a base price around $30k on a vehicle as large as a minivan. I am sure they could make it half the weight, but it will cost you to buy the weight reduction. It will be either louder, a lot less safe or cost more. My guess is that most people would rather have the extra weight.
That being said the Pacifica is a pretty darn good buy gently used.
I bet the 2009 models will be even better. If the 2009s get the direct injection engines and an increase in fuel economy as well as an increase in HP, people who bought the 2007/08 models will be furious!!!
IMHO the reason is they simply priced it too high. It costs more than a similar ML does, while it should have cost less. Most manufacturers price their minivans below their SUVs.
Sorry for using the "M" word.
You'll be there? That is something to think about.
I'd simply argue it as lazy design that will come back to bite them now that the new cafe regs are in place and they are going to have to do what they should have in the first place, cut weight. it will cost them more now to engineer the weight out as opposed to having done it correctly the first time plain and simple.
"My guess is that most people would rather have the extra weight."
and that's exactly why we are in the pickle we are in right now... unfortunately there is going to be be a big price to pay for that shortsightedness. the arrogance can't continue unabated.