Edmunds dealer partner, Bayway Leasing, is now offering transparent lease deals via these forums. Click here to see May lease deals!
Options
Popular New Cars
Popular Used Sedans
Popular Used SUVs
Popular Used Pickup Trucks
Popular Used Hatchbacks
Popular Used Minivans
Popular Used Coupes
Popular Used Wagons
Comments
http://www.toyota.com/html/shop/vehicles/camry/options/camry_opti- ons.html
What is the point of doing so, if at trade-in time, it doesn't matter? All that really matters at trade-in time is the cosmetic appearance of the car, and the fact that there are no obvious mechanical issues.
In all the times I've traded in a car - I've NEVER been asked about maintenance I've performed on the car. For all they know, I could have changed the oil twice over 60,000 miles. Before I trade a car, I have it detailed. The dealer does not take the time to look into it's maintenance history.
It's that reason alone that I NEVER GO TO THE DEALER FOR THE "SCHEDULED MAINTENANCE". Sure, I change the oil & filter every 4k, and flush the tranny every 30k, and replace the air filter every 15k. But that's about it, because anything past that is money down the drain, since I don't keep a car more than 4 or 5 years.
When I look at Edmunds used prices, it would appear that a 2000 would go for maybe 3000-4000 less than a new one, not enough of a difference to me. Cliffy1, however, noted that used prices have been depressed.
I would really appreciate some thoughts before I hit the bottle in my frustration. How much do you save on used? If new, buy 2002,2003 or wait for 2004?
Thank you
I guess it just comes down to what you want and what you want to pay for.
~alpha
Gas Milage, Reliability, Reseale
And a little research helps to understand the need for bargain basement pricing. Here's a summary from the recent large sedan test (Toyota Avalon, Buick Park Avenue, Lincoln Town Car, Mercury Grand Marquis LSE) by Consumer Reports:
"Despite upgrades for 2003, the Grand Marquis isn't keeping up with its more modern competition. It has the least amount of interior room in this group, especially in the rear. Its ride is stiff and jiggly; handling is secure but cumbersome. The cabin lacks the features and fit-and-finish quality that one expects of a $30,000 sedan. Reliability has fallen off lately, too."
A few more major downsides compared to the Camry:
"The LSE's V8... sounds harsher and delivers an unimpressive 16 mpg overall on regular fuel."
"The interior falls short, with subpar materials and flimsy plastic trim."
"The Grand Marquis has had worse-than-average reliability of late."
So which would you really rather have? The Grand Marquis, a big cumbersome sedan that has both subpar ride AND handling, a harsh engine that guzzles fuel, cheap interior materials and poor reliability? Or a Camry, a smaller but still roomy sedan with a comfortable ride, solid handling, much better gas mileage, top notch interior materials and design, and superb reliability?
I suggest that the $5,500 saved now on the Grand Marquis would cost you much more than it's worth in the long run in additional fuel, eventual repairs, resale value and driving and owner satisfaction. It's a false economy. Don't trade your overall satisfaction for a handful of extra toys. Get the Camry and don't look back.
Also, Impala LS was not included in the comparison referenced by Talon95 yet is one of the most reliable sedans tested by CR.
Sorry if you have a problem with it.
Anyway, 'nuff said about this off-topic subject.
The Camry is more refined, has better styling (subjective), rides better, and is more reliable.
Also, what options do you have with the Camry. The sunroof is NOW standard on the SE models isn't.
Do not get the Grand Mark, if Toyota has been this good to you, STICK with THEM!
I'd be hesitant about buying a new one, unless you plan on keeping it quite a while, cuz the first year depreciation hit is a whopper.
On the plus side, these cars are built like tanks, and should last quite a while.
: )
Mackabee
It doesn't sound like a clear-cut overall improvement ... I find pronounced downshift lag to be quite annoying. It sounds like in the rush to keep up with the hp numbers game, they gave up some refinement?
~alpha
We have the same 2003 XLE (silver with stone leather) that he has and just love it...a great car for the money. We traded in a '99 Sienna XLE with 117,000 km. on it and will use the Camry to supplement my wife's Subaru Outback. Now that we are retired, we can use the extra fuel money to see more of North America.
One of the other things that intrigued me about the new 4 cylinder engine , was that it had a timing chain, rather than a belt. I maintain our cars by the book and through the dealer. The oil changes and regular maintenance is very reasonable for both the Toyota and Subaru...it really isn't worth the hassle to try and do it myself. The important factor, however, is that you have to trust the dealer. In my case, it is working just fine.
alpha01... I finally opted for the 4cyl instead of the V6 for a number of reasons. Timing chain vs timing belt, unanswered questions about the 5spd AT (based on comments from 300ES owners), questionable suitability of 87 octane fuel in the V6. In the final analysis, I just couldn't justify the additional cost of the V6 for the type of driving that I do. Bottom line is that I wanted the V6; but decided that I didn't really NEED it.
"The Impala is Chevrolet's new **midsize** entry, reviving a nameplate that once graced a large car. "
And yes, I know the EPA classification. So I don't know what they were thinking.
: )
Mackabee
~alpha
The Camry for side impacts (no side SRS) scores
3 stars for driver, 5 stars rear passenger.
If you look at the actual injury measurements, the the Camry's driver score is close to that of the Impala.
Interestingly, the addition of Side SRS yields no benefit to the Impala (which does not offer Side Curtains).
The Camry has not yet been tested with Side SRS, bt its available setup, is, IMO, the best available- a thoracic bag that deploys from the seat, AND a Head Curtain protection system.
~alpha
Myself, being a Taurus owner and fan, would like to gently suggest they could buy a new 200Hp DOHC V-6 Taurus for $18-$19K and get a roomy, safe and yes, reliable, rattle free vehicle.
Note, I do not wish to pick a fight and will post no more here, just wish people would consider alternatives with less prejudice.
Sorry, promised not to post again here, but just couldn't allow references to 25-30 year old Ford designs as examples of Ford rattles and poor reliability to go unchallenged. I would have never bought a Ford back then either, their sedans had supremely mushmobile floaty suspensions compared to the competition. That reputation completely changed with Taurus introduction in mid 80's.
Yes, Camry is more expensive, but IMO you get what you pay for.
In my last post, I simply wished to show that the Camry scored BELOW the Impala for the driver in the side crash, BUT ABOVE for the passenger, which talon chose to ignore. Additionally, I pointed out that the Impala does not offer side airbags/side curtains, which the Camry does, and that this setup was not tested by NHTSA. I'm not really sure how that is an opinion. Even so, when I did voice my opinion that this setup was superior, I clearly stated it was my opinion, and reasons why. Yea, everyone does have opinions- but without 'em, boards like these wouldnt exist. (And I, for one, enjoy these boards).
In my recent search for a new car for MYSELF (the Camry is the family vehicle), I looked closely at the Focus- its a great handling vehicle. But, reliable? Judging from the what? at least 9 MAJOR SAFETY RELATED RECALLS and bottom rung rating from Consumer Reports, I crossed it off my list.
Regarding the Camry (and Accord), if you look at... oh, say.. EVERY trade publication ranging from Car and Driver to Consumer Reports, the Camry and Accord are consistently rated higher than the Taurus and Impala. With both the Camry and Accord available at or below invoice, I don't really see the point of anyone choosing a Taurus or Impala, which will ultimately have lower resale value, and arent as competitve. For me, a lower price by itself doesnt equate to a GOOD value.
Finally, I'll note that I was really excited when Chevy introduced the Impala in 2000- I was sent a certificate that promised a $100 savings bond if I test drove one. When I walked into the dealer they didnt want to give me the time of day, perhaps for my age (19), and they filled out the certificate without a test drive! The easiest $100 I will have ever made! Thanks, GM.
~alpha
Those of you who have one - how many miles on the clock, any issues?
: )
Mackabee
And you're telling me that because why? I never made any comments about the Impala's safety. My issue with the Impala is its dated overdamped chassis and most particularly a dashboard that looks like it was assembled from a junk parts bin.
Consumer Reports tested it in whatever way they saw fit. And it still ended up below midpack against cars like the Camry that you seem so intent to say is a poorer choice.
As for not giving American cars a chance, I bought the sales pitch and got a 1997 Cutlass, a car being touted (along with its chassis-mate, the Chevy Malibu) as the US answer to the Camry and Accord. After three years of enduring its clunky suspension, poor directional stability, creaks and rattles, and numerous equipment failures, I got rid of it and got a 2000 Accord. The difference is like night and day... by comparison to the Cutlass, with the Accord it feels like I've moved up from a basic family hauler to a sport luxury sedan. The Camry that I test drove gave a similar feel, I just happened to choose the Accord.
So to badgerfan, I gave a "competitive" American car a 3 year opportunity to show me that American cars had caught up with the Japanese cars, and it failed miserably. For that reason, I'll apologize to nobody for preferring cars like the Camry and Accord to underachieving designs like the Impala. As for the Taurus, the money you save now will be lost due to far faster depreciation in maybe 3 years, and you'll still be driving the lackluster design that is the current Taurus. And yes, more contemporary Fords do clunk and rattle... my mother's '93 Sable has done so since day one.
Just a couple of additional points of interest for those making comparisons.
Ken