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 7/25 for details.
A reporter would like to speak with you about your experience; please reach out to PR@Edmunds.com by 7/25 for details.
Options
Comments
Funny, for all the turmoil Chrysler is going through, one of the best cars I've owned was the only Mopar I had - a 1985 Chrysler Fifth Avenue. I don't remember ever having any trouble with it. I sold it to my brother 16 years ago and he's still driving it.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
Regards,
OW
Nice!
Regards,
OW
True to a point. I've had vehicles I've liked that have had horrible depreciation. The main positive of good resale is it takes a bit of the sting away if you really want to.
Back '97 my brother bought a new Civic EX coupe and I bought a '98 (it came out it Feb '97) Ford SVT Contour at roughly the same time. My Contour cost roughly $8k more than the Civic. We both traded in 3 years later and damn if that Civic wasn't worth just as much as my Contour. Granted I really liked the car, but it was troublesome and I took a complete bath on it when I got rid of it. Unfortunately having a troublesome car with bad resale is a real problem, because you are getting killed either way and often these things go hand in hand.
But the cars that are excitement often aren't practical for everyday driving for _some_ of us.
What surprised me was that the car did have the cues that made it exciting to see a car with the things that made the early ones interesting many, many years ago.
I had seen the Charger and it was a real replica that had the cues of the originals, but it didn't excite me. I have watched the Mustang/Thunderbird and the Mustang was nicely done, but never excited me to want to pick up one, even when a friend of my wife's bought a bright red convertible.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
If, like lemko, you know you are going to hang on to teh car for years and years it doesn't really matter.
Several times I've bought new Hondas thinking how nice the slow depreciation is (not why i bought them but i liked that). By the time I'm through with them that's mostly irrelevant. I will admit that even a used up Accord still gets actual money.
Regards,
OW
Same here. I buy car which gives me fun to drive because I spend 2-3hrs in it. I don't care about resale value
-Rocky
Well, there are advantages to a solid rear axle, too...an IRS isn't a cure-all for everything. A solid rear axle is usually better for off-roading, and since there's less complexity, less to break and usually cheaper when it does. Traditionally, a solid axle would be stronger and better for towing and hauling heavy loads, but if the Expedition can be set up to do that better than a Yahoe, evidently there are ways around it.
-Rocky
-Rocky
-Rocky
I agree, I think it was axed when they decided to rush them to market. The biggest side effect is the lack of fold down rear seats. That's not as big of an issue with a Suburban as it still has lots of cargo space behind the 3rd row, but with a Tahoe, the 3rd row seats are always in the way and still a PITA to remove and store if you when you need the space which happens anytime you put anything in the cargo area. My Suburban's 3rd row wasn't split, it was a back breaker to remove that seat.
My neighbor has a new Tahoe and his 3rd row seats are always sitting in the garage. There are times where we use the 3rd row and have them up and at the last minute buy something and we need the cargo space. In the Expedition it's as simple as pushing two button to fold the 60/40 slit. You can fold one section flat and have cargo and people space.
-Rocky
-Rocky
-Rocky
-Rocky
No doubt an IRS isn't a cure all or guarantees one vehicle is better than the other. In a truck/SUV I kind of appreciate the simplicity of a solid axle. Less parts and you don't need 4 wheel alignments, no half shafts etc. As for offroading, seems the purist prefer solid axles as they have more articulation, easier to use lift kits, etc, but I don't recommend doing hard core off in a Tahoe/Expedition, not enough ground clearance etc. Who ever thought we'd question the choice of an IRS in an SUV and a solid axle in the Mustang. LOL
As for tow capacity the Expe is rated around 9,000lbs, the current Tahoe is up to 8200 and the Denali's are 7,900lbs I believe. Being able to get the 6speed in the Expedition was one of the biggest reason's I chose it over a Tahoe/Suburban. It wasn't available in those when I was shopping, and I couldn't justify the extra expense of going with a Denali plus it had a lower tow rating. One thing to consider is the Expedition's are heavier, same with the F series trucks. It can hurt fuel economy and acceleration, but they do make great towing platforms and cargo hauling platforms.
I looked at the 3/4 ton Yukon/Suburban, but man they ride like crap with the rear leaf spring suspension and it was basically rated the same as the Expedition, I'm sure it had a higher a higher payload capacity, but the fuel economy in those were bad even for SUV standards. If I towed all of the time, it probably would be better to tow with, but that was a sacrifice I was willing to take.
Kind of interesting how Dodge put coil springs on the back of the 1500 Ram. I've read where it makes a big difference on the ride, but it does give up payload and towing capacity vs. Ford, Chevy, Toyota etc. Just comes down to what you need and like.
That's a tough call. Don't know how much it would cost to make the changes and the market certainly isn't what it was for BOF SUV's. Add that to the fact they still lead the segment in sales, it probably doesn't make a whole lot of sense to make the changes until the next redesign is due, which I'm guessing will be a long way off with the current state of GM. As long as they have government money, I tend to think many of the Dems would throw a fit if GM started talking about putting more money into a vehicle they see as destroying the environment andour national security;)
I guess it was probably a lot cheaper from a financial standpoint, too, keeping the SUV's solid rear axle, so they could share more with the pickup trucks that they're related to. I wonder how much it cost Ford to offer the Expedition with IRS, while keeping the F-series solid rear axle?
Didn't the Explorer go IRS back in 2002? I seem to remember that it did, and that was the reason why they were able to finally offer it with a 3rd row seat, while GM had to come out with an extended wheelbase on the Trailblazer to get a 3rd row in.
Yes, the Explorer got the IRS in '02 and a 6speed trans with the v8 in '06 I believe. The Expedition got an IRS in 2003, the big change with the '07 redesign was the 6speed trans. If GM would have had the 6speed in the 07 Suburban redesign, I would have looked harder at them.
Having an IRS doesn't mean it will have a smoother ride, that depends on spring rates and shock/strut dampening among other factors. It's the same thing with the Expedition vs. Tahoe/Denali. The Expedition has a firmer ride, but in my opinion it's a more controlled/solid ride that I prefer.
The 4 Runner's of that vintage where great, very well built, somewhat underpowered at the time. I looked at them when I bought an '01 Pathfinder. Those 4 Runners weren't cheap new or used.
Was 03 the year they were redesigned and the 4.7 offered (great engine btw)? I was looking at them in 01 when the 3.4L v6 was the only choice and it was a dog compared to Nissan's 240hp/265 ft-lbs 3.5 v6 and that along with good incentives is why I went with the Pathfinder LE. It was a great vehicle, we just outgrew it. Ironically, that 01 Pathfinder got worse hwy mileage than my '07 Expedition does, the PF was a little better around town, but it also weighed nearly 2,000lbs less.
-Rocky
-Rocky
They're probably no better today. My buddy has an '06 Xterra, which is essentially a truncated Pathfinder, with the 4.0 V-6. I think it has 260 or 265 hp. We've gone on trips with it, and I've managed to barely break 20 mpg when I'd drive it. I think the best he's gotten is 19, but he has a heavier foot than I do...and I think having all that power is what developed that heavy foot. Before this, he had a '98 Tracker! I got him to start tracking his fuel economy, and I think he usually averages around 16-18 in mixed driving. IIRC, it was EPA-rated 16/21, before they started rounding down for 2007. These days I imagine it's rated 14/19.
Which is pretty much the rating for any BOF truck/SUV midsize to fullsize.
I know, isn't that kinda sad? However, the Xterra still weighs around 4200 lb...about the same as my '85 Silverado! It's little, but it ain't light! It's pretty quick, too. I think 0-60 comes up in around 7 seconds. Only problem is, like a musclecar I guess, even when you drive it gently, it's not all that economical.
Yeah, if you look at the economy ratings of a 5.3 powered trailblazer to a Suburban, which is much bigger and heavier, they basically the same.
I just checked for 09. Looks like the 5.3 is dropped for the Trailblazer, the 4.2 is rated at 14/20, same as a 5.3 powered Suburban. The TB SS with the 6.0l is rated at 12-16. That's disgraceful and worse than a 6.2 powered Suburban/Escalade which is rated at 12/19.
Corvette, CTS (post 2008), Camaro, G-8 GT and perhaps the Solstice/Sky, Mustang, Challenger, 300C, Charger...maybe 15 out of 60 nameplates?
The 'Vette and perhaps the Camaro will do both well.
Regards,
OW
My wife wanted the Enclave but decided that it's probably going to be the Highlander when she is ready. The quality issues we have had are the main reason. She wants the TRS for the extra passenger capability.
I will wait for the "Cash for Clunker" program to work itself out of the Congress later this month to weigh our options.
Regards,
OW
Regards,
OW
-Rocky
http://www.buick.com/vehicles/2009/enclave/overview.do?evar3=HP_EnclaveConsumerG- - uide
-Rocky
Perhaps when the New Owners get their Certificate of Occupancy in Detroit, new BoD, CEO and decide on the surviving nameplates, the quality will make it to the top of the industry in a few years.
Until then, NO ENCLAVE FOR ME!....NEXT!
Regards,
OW
Of course they did! They are grandparents. Buying Buicks is their job!
Sorry. i couldn't help myself....
My wife LOVES the inside but will not pull the trigger on another GM. Can I blame her??? :confuse:
Regards,
OW
-Rocky
Sorry. i couldn't help myself....
LOL! I will say, if I needed that type of vehicle, it would be on the top of my list to shop. They make a lot more sense over a Tahoe unless you need the extra towing capacity and/or BOF toughness.
-Rocky