Please help me decide between...

british_rover · April 2008

Just get a Volvo.

I think all Volvos have blind spot warning systems as an option now and you can get the S40 with awd too.

lynnberman · April 2008

I have enjoyed everything about my 04 Durango w/Hemi except the high monthly payment and the ridiculous gas guzzling. I think I have convinced hubby that a lower-priced more fuel-efficient vehicle is a wise choice for our family of 5 at this point. However, I find myself going in circles trying to decide what to buy. We really enjoy having the 3rd seat, as we have 3 children (11, 8 & 3) and do lots of carpools and take several road trips a year (cargo space is very important), plus Grandma visits regularly and may end up living with us permanently in the near future. So, a 7-seater is a HUGE plus for us, but I'm hesitant to call it an absolute necessity. I am looking at going with a 4cyl. engine for the better mileage. I'm trying to keep the price tag under $25.000 so I would have to go used on some of the vehicles I'm considering (I'm fine with that). Here is what I have been researching:
1. Used Toyota Rav4 w/3rd seat
2. Used Honda CRV (no 3rd seat available)
3. Mazda5 (only seats 6...we'd have to use the 3rd row on every outing)
4. Kia Rondo (sensible but not very cool...I'm trying pretty hard to maintain some cool factor, which is tough as a mom of 3...also, I'm not sure if I can get leather seats without getting a V6?)
These are just the vehicles that I seem to keep coming back to...there may be something out there that is just perfect for me that I have completely missed. So, if anyone has any great advice for me as far as which of the above vehicles is the better choice, or if you know of another vehicle I should really be considering, please, please, please help me out!!! Thanks.

stickguy · April 2008

Get a minivan. Maybe an MPV, since they are a little smaller? Or just go big with a Sienna.

Most of the smaller SUV types are very limited as 7 seaters. Not very comfy, and zippo cargo room with the seat up.

kyfdx · April 2008

Ford Taurus X? (formerly the Freestyle) It seats 7, I think..

lynnberman · April 2008

Hi, Thank you for the responses. I probably didn't put enough info in my original post (I thought it was already wordy enough!). I've pretty much ruled out the minivans because they just won't get me enough of a mpg improvement over my Durango. I used to drive an MPV (really liked it) but I only got 17-18 mpg. I currently get 13-14 in the Durango. The rating at fueleconomy.gov on the Taurus X is 17/24, so I probably wouldn't get better than about 18. Same for the Sienna. I do mostly city driving. In order to make replacing the current vehicle worthwhile I really need to get something that I can get 20mpg or better in the city. In addition to saving on gas, I am trying to make my oldest child feel better about our 'carbon footprint' (she has really jumped into the 'go green' movement). Am I being unrealistic?

tlcruz · April 2008

What about a used Highlander Hybrid? It still gives you the SUV and helps out with the fuel economy?

cccompson · April 2008

I would suggest you sit down and really crunch some gas mileage numbers. The market for SUVs is absolutely dead and you will pay dearly in selling your '04.

Example (for illustration purposes only): does it make sense to save $500 per year in fuel costs by taking a 3 grand hit on the Durango?

jaxs1 · April 2008

Any vehicle with stability control will handle skids pretty well, but AWD + stability control would be ideal in snowy, icy areas. Get a Subaru Forester or Legacy. If you want smaller, get an Imprezza.
They meet all your criteria and pricing.

lynnberman · April 2008

Hi, thanks again for your posts. Yes, I have definitely considered the fact that I probably won't save enough in fuel costs to account for the hit we will take on the SUV given the tremendous depreciation it will have seen. That is the reason I am looking to stay under $25K with a new(to me) vehicle--to bring the payments lower than what I am currently paying, so that I save not just on fuel but on monthly payments. That is why I only briefly considered the lovely Highlander Hybrid--even purchasing an 06 would, I believe, be too expensive for me. I tend to keep vehicles for a fairly long time, so one thought I've had is that whatever car I get now will probably be the car that my 11 year old ends up driving when she turns 16 (terrifying thought). So, my line of thinking is that it is okay to buy something safe, reliable and fuel efficient now and pay on it for 5 years (even tho the current SUV will be paid off in 2.5) b/c it will probably be 'in the family' for upwards of 10 years or more. I think the main thing is that it is killing me to make these high monthly payments on top of paying almost $4/gallon for the unbelievable amount of fuel the thing uses. And perhaps the fact that the current vehicle was not my choice is clouding my judgement a bit. Oh dear! :confuse: Perhaps I need to mull this over for a little longer...thank you for making me think!

british_rover · April 2008

You are probably better off keeping the Durango and finding ways to improve its fuel efficiency and just drive less.

Combine trips when you can and drive less aggressively. I can beat the pre-2007 EPA numbers by 15 percent or more on every car I have ever driven just by driving slower. Just accelerate more smoothly and slowly from stops and avoid sudden stops that waste energy.

Are the tires on your durango filled to the right pressure? Do you keep a roof rack on the roof all the time even when you don't use it? I admit I am guilty of that because the rack is a PITA to get off. Put synthetic oil in the engine to pick up a little pit of extra MPG. To pick up even more fuel efficiency put synthetic in the transmission, transfer case and both differentials too. A service like that will probably run you 400-500 dollars at one time but you won't have to change out the synthetic again unless you put an additional 100,000 to 150,000 miles on the car.

lynnberman · April 2008

Hi, you and my husband must be talking!

He agrees with you about keeping the Durango...the trouble is, HE is the aggressive driver! He drives the Durango on the weekends and occasionally during the week and he drives much faster, floors it when he pulls off from a stop, and brakes hard for speed bumps and the like. He has often commented on the fact that I drive like a grandma compared to him. I don't think I am going to get him to change! I've been telling him we need to use his car (Volvo S60) for family trips to soccer games and stuff like that (longer trips than my during-the-week quick trips), but he prefers taking the Durango b/c it has the DVD player for the kids and more cargo space for folding chairs, coolers, shade covers, etc. I really don't drive very much...to the kids' school, preschool, grocery store, piano lessons, etc., all of which are within 5 miles of my house. I did have the Lube shop put synthetic oil in at my last oil change a few weeks ago, and I have actually seen the mpg increase from 13.4 to 13.9, which I was very happy with. The EPA on my car is 12 City, 17 Hwy, so chances are I'm not going to get much better with the type of driving I do. It has roof rack rails--do I need to try and take those off (I'm clueless about this stuff!)? It only has 60K miles on it so I haven't really ever looked into any of the other fluids...no one has ever recommended replacing them. It does need new tires desperately which might help with the mileage a bit (we've been holding off until we decide whether to go with a new vehicle or not). I guess the feeling I'm getting is that there probably isn't a car on the market that is going to give me everything I want AND greatly improved gas mileage, so I might as well stick it out with the Durango...am I getting the right message here?

plekto · April 2008

I second this. You need full-time AWD/4X4. It's been shown that Volvo and the others are actually useless in actual situations where they need the traction. Either the system responds too slowly or it's only good for getting started in snow.

This link is to a video - and yes, it's sponsored by Subaru, but the hill climb test doesn't lie. Only something with 4WD is going to actually be useful in dirt and snow.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4999142340359932162&hl=en

This second one is from Europe. That's a pretty typical dirt road by the looks of it. You'd see this in half of the U.S. once you left the interstate in winter.

http://www.leftlanenews.com/video-volvo-vs-subaru-awd.html

Solid engineering beats fancy marketing and tech-toys.
Note - you could also get a Tacoma or 4Runner with 4WD. I have an older 4Runner and it's the real deal. - Climb over rocks and go through a foot of mud...

aredfield · May 2008

thanks so much to everyone who has replied so far. It's all been very helpful. Looks like Subaru is the way to go. Now, I have to drill down more on which one to get.

aredfield · May 2008

The Forester demos are very impressive. But, is there a performance difference between the Forester and Legacy? All of the performance tests show the Forester, not the Legacy. Based on the data, do you think the Legacy handles ice/snow on slopes as well as the Forester does?

tifighter · May 2008

Based on the data, do you think the Legacy handles ice/snow on slopes as well as the Forester does?

Yep; the same. Either is a great choice...

aredfield · May 2008

I am very unversed in car lingo and I'm sorting through all this anti-skid stuff. I finally got the whole AWD vs. 4 wheel, etc.cleared up.

But now I am trying to sort out the stability control and traction control business, because those also were mentioned to me as important.

Does an AWD vehicle automatically have stability and traction control?

Does it look like the AWD Subarus have stability and traction control?

I have been on their website and it's not clear to me.

thanks everyone for all the help

plekto · May 2008

Traction control is basically like an improved version of limited slip diffs. With full time AWD, it's effectively built into the design.(and why the Subarus do so well in races and the twisties!).

Stability control is essentially nanny-ware that tries to override you when it thinks you are getting too out of hand with your driving. 100% of Subaru owners that I know who race them turn this off all of the time, since it's largely not needed and intrudes.(or just don't order it at all) Full time AWD with full time traction control at all four wheels pretty much makes the stability control moot.

Plus, the limits on a Subaru are... well, look at rally racing. If they are driving that hard and don't need/want stability control, the limits are so far above typical driving in what the car can handle that you're better off going to racing school and getting better skills in the first place than relying on nanny-ware.

jaxs1 · May 2008

Wow, biased. Stability control has been proven to reduce accidents on the streets. It's not debatable. Racers don't want it because it may slow them down a little in turns and could be the differnce between winning and losing a race.

british_rover · May 2008

Of course you turn it off when you race as stability control tries to eliminate slip angle and in many racing situations, and all rally driving situations, you need some slip angle.

Stability control is a good thing even if it is a little on the aggressive side it is a good thing.

plekto · May 2008

(hate how it makes me put a title in. but whatever..)

I didn't notice much difference in real options and equipment between the Civic and the 3, at least on the fully loaded models. Slight things here and there, of course, but they are very close cousins as opposed to something like a VW which is on another entire planet, or a Chevy which might as well be someone out in the Ort Cloud.

The smart money is on the less expensive yet similar vehicle, of course. Mazdas are very solid cars.

aredfield · May 2008

Dear Friends:

thank you for the informative replies. It was terrific to get a slight disagreement, as it helps me out.

I will disappoint plekto by saying, when it comes to motor vehicles, I can use all the nannying I can get.

So, I still have a few questions:

Did I understand correctly that traction control is part of AWD and if the Subaru I get has AWD, then I have traction control? Is that correct?

Did I also understand correctly that stability control is not part of AWD?

So, how can I tell if a Subaru (or any car) has Stability Control? When I look at the Subaru website, I am not seeing it listed.

paisan · May 2008

Traction control and Stability control are merely marketing items that some companies use. Subaru doesn't prescribe to these marking tactics.

On the Subarus you get AWD on any of the vehicles.

If you get one with an Automatic Trans, depending on which one you get will determine how much engine power by default is put to the front axle vs. the rear axle, on a manual tranny you get 50/50 by default. The AWD system will strive to have both the front and rear drive shafts moving at the same speed and will move power front to rear to achive this.

Subaru also has VDC which controls the side to side power flow, as well as skid control. VDC will use the ABS system as well and throttle control to make sure that both left and right side wheels are turning at the same rate and that the angle that you are turning your wheel at is the way in which the car is moving.

So to answer your question, VDC is similar to "stability and traction control" rolled into one. The AWD system is also similar to "stability and traction control" as well.

If I were shopping for the safest subaru I'd be looking at ones with VDC (AWD is standard on all subarus so it's a mute point)

-mike

kyfdx · May 2008

Did I understand correctly that traction control is part of AWD and if the Subaru I get has AWD, then I have traction control? Is that correct?

Correct... As paisan noted, there are numerous ways to achieve traction control.. AWD itself connotes traction control.

Did I also understand correctly that stability control is not part of AWD?

Also correct.. Stability control is an extra layer of protection to pull a vehicle out of skids (or to stop it from skidding in the first place). It involves shifting power, or using the ABS to brake a specific wheel. This is not something that is automatically included with AWD. (but, it could be standard on some systems).

IMO, the vast majority of drivers can benefit from stability control, AWD or not...

regards,
kyfdx

jaxs1 · May 2008

VDC is Subaru's "marketing" name for stability control.
Stablility control automatically includes traction control
Traction control automatically has ABS.

aredfield · May 2008

Thanks everybody! What a help you have been. I will run with Subaru with AWD and VDC

aredfield · May 2008

Just when I thought I had everything settled (AWD w/VDC. Don't need a big car, might as well go with an Imprezza), I get this feedback from a Subaru dealer:

"I personally do not think that this feature [VDC] helps you unless you have a high output motor. VDC does not activate because the car does not have enough power to go in to a slide under power. But keep in mind this is only my opinion and experience. this is your car, your money and your decision. If you want the VDC system you should go in to a premium package as that will give you that feature along with many other toys/buttons."

He is trying to get me to upgrade to a Legacy or a Forrester (the new ones are bigger than I want) or maybe a fancier Imprezza.

Now, I don't know if what he's saying is true or not. I don't want to invest in VDC on a 2.5 Imprezza if it doesn't help me. My goal is maximum safety is snow/ice on slopes. On the other hand, maybe he's just pulling a fast one.

thoughts?

p.s. this is exactly why I used to buy Saturns. I didn't have to go through this agony!

kyfdx · May 2008

Well... I think he's off base..

True, you probably aren't going to lose control of your base Impreza via applying too much power... but, you could certainly lose control by entering a turn at too high of speed, making an emergency maneuver, etc., etc...

VDC is a safety option.. Most WRX drivers that want to 4-wheel-drift would turn the VDC off, anyway...

I think it's a worthwhile option on any vehicle... Whether the premium package holds value for you, you'll have to decide.. If your goal is maximum safety, you should definitely get it.

regards,
kyfdx

oregonboy · May 2008

I'm so tight that I squeak, but I think that I would pony-up the $1500 extra for the premium package on an Impreza. (Make mine a blue 5-door, manual trannie).

Premium Package (Optional $1,500):
Vehicle Dynamics Control (VDC)
16 x 6.5-inch 12-spoke aluminum-alloy wheels
Rear disc brakes
Fog lights
Body-color side mirrors and door handles
Incline Start Assist on manual transmission only
Brake Assist
Leather-wrapped steering wheel with audio and cruise control switches
Leather-wrapped shifter handle
80-watt 10-speaker audio system with 6-disc in-dash CD changer, MP3/WMA capability, SRS Circle Surround Automotive audio enhancement, and vehicle speed-sensing volume adjustment

kyfdx · May 2008

Good point!!

Alloys and 4-wheel disc, plus stability control, upgraded stereo w/6 disc changer.... and other goodies...

I'd want all of those...

plekto · May 2008

My take on it is that it's largely moot if you have a manual transmission. The Manual is locked into 50/50 operation all of the time, nearly perfect weight balance, and there's tons of engine compression when slowing down, so it's hard to actually drive in a manner that makes the rear end want to kick out - unless you really are trying to spin it or doing stupid things.

The AWD system does a fantastic job of keeping you going straight when there's typical road problems. Pros who drive the things silly don't get the VDC - the salesperson is right, IMO. The car is very sure-footed as it is and doesn't really need the VDC package with that little power. Now, if it was a WRX with the 300HP engine... yeah, maybe so. :P

Just stay simple. No leather, no bling, no premium package, no sunroof to make your head boil/act like a magnifying glass.

If you DO want the Premium package, get the Outback Sport for the same price, since it comes with all of that standard. Better resale value and better paint options and so on as well, IMO. Plus, it's raised about an inch to do better off-road - but it's not as good in cornering as a result.

Yes, this is a car that you must get in manual. Automatic in a car like this is a travesty - like 200 points off of your karma. Not as bad as getting a 911 with automatic, but close.

oregonboy · May 2008

Plus, it's raised about an inch to do better off-road -

I believe that there is only something like 1/10th inch difference in ground clearance between the 2008 Impreza and the Outback Sport. I think that the monotone paint on the Impreza is more attractive (IMHO).

steine13 · May 2008

"I personally do not think that this feature [VDC] helps you unless you have a high output motor."

Translation: "I don't think I could get you the car before you change your mind, so why don't you buy one of my little cars that I've got sitting here right now?" That's not just wrong, that's daft.

I've never had a car with VDC or even traction control, so I can't speak from personal experience. The point is that the car senses when you start to slip and slide, like for instance on ice, and starts to selectively apply individual brakes to keep you from losing control.

I suspect that 1/2 its value derives from the fact that it lets you know via a warning light what it's doing, so you know when you're close to the edge. It's like driving on the freeway and you don't know if it's icy. With ABS, you just make sure nobody is behind you, then you apply the brakes. If you feel the brakes pulsing, you k.now things are slick and you need to slow down. Without ABS, you'll start going sideways almost immediately if there's black ice, for instance, and good luck getting the car back under control.

VDC is just another tool, and I suspect it's a good one.

By the way, I doubt you got this feedback from a "Subaru dealer", I suspect it was a salesman... keep in mind, they don't usually know cars... they know how to sell.

Cheers
-Mathias

oregonboy · May 2008

Amen, brother! I think you are spot-on with your take on the "dealer" advice.

Here in the great Pacific NW, the roads are wet, icy, or snow covered for a fair percentage of the year. Throw in a few wandering Bambis, and it is easy to get sideways, regardless of the vehicles power output! :surprise:

james

jonnyg1 · May 2008

Hi Ladies and Gents,

I commute 100 miles a day, 75% freeway. I drive an aging civic that still gets 35 to 38 MPG, but it's the model year (95) that tends to rust apart, and is on the borderline of costing me too much.

I'm looking for fuel economy, but fun as well, I need to try to enjoy those miles to maintain sanity. Here's my two final choices:

VW Jetta TDI Diesel- great fuel economy (45-48MPG) and engine life, not so sporty or fun, but also has the potential alternative fuels?!

Standard Mini Cooper- Almost 40 MPG, obviously fun to drive, comfortable enough for a guy my size, but what type of car/engine life and reliability are we looking at? I'm having trouble talking myself into a new car only to put 30+ thousand mile a year on it, am I off base there?!!?!

Any other Suggestions?

Thanks Jonny :confuse:

dtownfb · May 2008

Make sure you factor in the price of the fuel for both of those cars. Diesel costs about a dollar more a gallon here on the east coast and the Mini requires premium fuel.

I'd run the numbers to see if either is a financial advantage to just buying a used Civic.

oregonboy · May 2008

Civics hold their value so well that a new Civic might make more sense.

british_rover · May 2008

And a MINI holds its value just as well if not better then a Civic.

At 30,000 miles a year though resale matters a lot less. That many miles a year just wipes out your resale value too fast.

oregonboy · May 2008

And a MINI holds its value just as well if not better then a Civic.

True, so it may be better to buy either of the two new rather than used. Six years later, at 180k miles, each will retain some value, as opposed to say, a Ford Focus, which would be nearly worthless.

As an aside, I was recently supprised to notice that the Civic is rated better for highway mileage that a Honda Fit.

jipster · May 2008

Any other Suggestions?

A Buick LaCrosse is both sporty, fun, reliable... and good mpg.

british_rover · May 2008

A Buick LaCrosse is neither sporty nor fun, but is reliable with ok mpg

There fixed that for you.

oregonboy · May 2008

Hahahahaha

I went to the Buick website to find out the EPA mileage estimates for the LaCrosse, and that information is nowhere to be found. :surprise:

I was able to get it on the Edmunds site: 17/28 for the least expensive, 6-cyl model. Not really comparable to Civics or TDIs. :shades:

jipster · May 2008

I was able to get it on the Edmunds site: 17/28 for the least expensive, 6-cyl model. Not really comparable to Civics or TDIs.

Well... then just drive it on the highway oregonboy. Problem solved. :P

jonnyg1 · May 2008

Buick's are out of the question.

Thanks Gents for your comments!! I'm real hesitant to buy new with that kind of milage per year. Although, as british Rover said, if I keep the car about four to five years, it should still have some tradi-in value left, and be in fairly good shape for the miles. My civic now, is worth about $500.

I like to use the Miles per $ calculation. Estimate cost of a tank and total miles per tank for each vehicle, and then I know how many miles I'm driving per $ spent. The best way I know to compare different fueled vehicles. Now that I know that the Mini takes premium, thanks to you guys, the TDI burry's it. Mini @ approx 8.8 mi/$, and the TDI @ 10.21mi/$ (using Prem=$4.20 and Deisel= $4.75).

Let me know if my calc doesn't make sense?!?! I know my fuel price is off a little. I guess I'll have to do some calc's for the civic, I own one now, not against them by any means!

Thank again guys!!!

plekto · May 2008

Heh. The GM 3.8 is solid. It gets a consistent 28-30mpg highway(actual driving at 70mph) if you're light on the pedal.

It also is cheaper to fix, and the transmission is the same 4 speed that's been made forever, so you can literally get one rebuilt for $1200 all over town.(Camry new models cost $3500 to "fix" by comparison!)

And they things can be had a year or two used for about 60% of their new price. That buys a lot of gas.

I'd look at a GrandPrix with the upgraded suspension - it's not a bad car. 1 year old for $12-14K if you shop around.

Mr_Shiftright · July 2008

I don't see any advantage to owning a diesel at this point in time in America, although that might change in the future; as for reliability, neither the MINI or the VW is particularly outstanding in this department. They both score average, at best.

Fun factor goes to MINI
Range between fill-ups goes to VW
Resale --- both are very good
Dealer network goes to VW

theessenceofla · August 2008

2 choices for me:

$15500- 2008 Hyundai Elantra GLS ($15500 OTD with everything) or
$12250- 2006 Mazda3i ($12250 OTD with similar features as elantra but 20000 miles)

I plan to keep either car for 3-4 years max...
And actually I can afford to put about $5000 down with loan rates about 5% for either of those cars through my CU..

So what's the better option? Or are they both about the same? I am 22 btw...

p.s. - I have put this message in used car forum too so sorry if you have to read it twice but i want some expert or real world opinions

qbrozen · August 2008

For me, the Mazda wins, hands down. Have you driven both?

Granted, I have not driven an '08 Elantra, but I would be absolutely shocked if it is nearly as fun to drive as the mazda3.

suydam · August 2008

Not only will the Mazda be more fun, but Mazdas are in general reliable cars and parts for them are not expensive. The fuel economy is a weak point but the Elantra will probably be similar.

dtownfb · August 2008

The Mazda will be more fun to drive. The Elantra will have better fuel economy, warranty, interior space. Of course the Mazda will have lost it's depreciation. Personally, I have trouble driving the Mazda 3 due to the pedal position and center console.

To be honest, you can't go wrong with either car esp. for the time period you are looking to own. I like buying used in this economy and would go with the Mazda.

boomchek · August 2008

I'd go with the Mazda3 as well. Resale alone should be better after 5 years even though the Mazda is still 2 years older. Hyundai has come a long way, but for a 22 year old, you'll have way more fun with the Mazda.

Please help me decide between...

Comments

Helpful Tools

Most popular vehicles