-
Please take a moment and update your account profile. If you have an updated account profile with basic information on why you are on Air Warriors it will help other people respond to your posts. How do you update your profile you ask?
Go here:
Edit Account Details and Profile
Car choice and moving
- Thread starter m26
- Start date
Why new?
I'm a happy Forester driver, and the 2009 model is a huge improvement in rear legroom from previous models. It's a handy, fun, practical little crossover. I wouldn't bother with the Outback unless you expect to be carry backseat passengers regularly. The trim is nicer, though.
I'm a happy Forester driver, and the 2009 model is a huge improvement in rear legroom from previous models. It's a handy, fun, practical little crossover. I wouldn't bother with the Outback unless you expect to be carry backseat passengers regularly. The trim is nicer, though.
Why new? Because I'd rather have a car that's all mine, and that has been totally taken care of. I'm not 100% on new, though. But I can get $4000+ off sticker on some of the cars I'm looking at, and so I'm not sure how good a deal I can find on a used car to compete with that.
The Outback trim is nicer, and also the CVT handles highway speeds better than the 4-speed, IMO. Also it's bigger.
The Outback trim is nicer, and also the CVT handles highway speeds better than the 4-speed, IMO. Also it's bigger.
I don't think I will ever buy used. Perhaps if I just had the money to throw away the moment I drove it off the lot, but not now. I understand the "I want it to be all mine and brand new" argument, but that just isn't me really. A car with a few miles under it's belt often has character, and you can get "used" without it being used. I bought my current car at just over 40k on the clock, certified pre-owned, starmarked, warranty until 100k, etc for just over 21k several years back. Car originally stickered about 4 years prior to that for $68k. Not too bad for an ENS mobile on a "budget". Has all the luxury I need, way more performance than I need, and those heated German leather seats are nice on those cold MS mornings driving to a brief (now that RHPF stole my garage). Get what you want, but IMHO you might as well load your new car with fresh Benjamins and open all the windows as you drive off the lot when you go that route.
^ ^ Breaking in is still important, mine only had 2 miles on it when I test drove it. Me, I'd go new or less than 1000 miles. Anything more than that and it's a gamble.(IMHO)
Triumph57
Member
I don't take consumer reports too seriously as far as cars go. As the name implies it is information reported by car "owners" (more on that later), not statistical data about recalls, number of fixes per car model, severity of problems per car model and other truly relevant reliability data. They ask people to report what cars they had and the number of problems. A "problem" could be anything from a broken car stereo button to a broken transmission after only 15,000 miles. This gives an advantage to cars with good fit and finish (which I'll admit the domestics haven't been as good as the imports historically). A car that has the radio button break, excessive highway noise and a sticky ignition has 3 problems but a car where the engine blows up only has 1 problem. This hides the true durability of the vehicles. This is why Jaguars consistently rank very high in consumer reports but have a terrible reputation for reliability. All the little things work great but when they break, they are serious about it.
Another problem with consumer reports is that all the data is self reported. This opens the door to all kinds of consumer perception. For example, cars stereotypically driven by older drivers like lincoln and oldsmobile before it was axed rank highly, as the elderly are less likely to complain if the sync audio system or whatever breaks because they are less likely to use it in the first place. Youth oriented brands like Scion rank lower because young people are more likely to complain about every insignificant detail and blame the car for driver error (such as not knowing how to properly drive a manual transmission car). Also people use the forms to claim to own cars that they don't and either praise their dream car or crap on their car's race rival. Don't believe me? Consumer Reports received over two times as many reports from Ferrari Enzo "owners" as there were Enzos produced.
Thirdly, consumer reports frequently groups cars by country of origin ( American cars, Japanese cars, German cars). This means that if Ford builds really reliable cars but GM and MOPAR don't Ford suffers from the faults of its neighbors (Just an example. I'm a GM guy). Also if Honda, Nissan and Mazda build really reliable cars but Suzuki doesn't, they get the boost from their neighbors (once again just an example).
Fourthly most of their data is taken from three year old models. Most modern cars are still under warranty at this time and have had no major problems. What really matters is 5 or 10 years down the line. Consumer reports doesn't have any where near enough data in this time frame and even if they did, it wouldn't necessarily be relevant. By that time, the cars have likely under gone major reengineering, so it has no real bearing on what new car you should buy. And if you think that you should buy from a car maker that has been historically reliable, look at all the quality issues Toyota has been having lately. CEOs change, Engineers change, corporate design philosophy changes.
Lastly, until a recent Honda slipup (the manual transmissions in newer accords and civic SI), Honda and Toyota were assumed "5 star reliability" in the 3 year period between when a new model came out and CR could collect data on three year old ones, where as every other manufacturer had to prove it. This is clearly prejudiced. Every manufacturer has had quality issues at some point, including Honda and Toyota, and contrary to popular belief, Toyota has had recalls and quality issues prior to this recent accelerator scandal.
I could go on for days but the point is CR sucks. If you want a great toaster, fine, see what CR has to say. If you want a nice car, you are going to have to do some more research. If you really want to see some CR hate, fine a Suzuki Samurai enthusiast forum and ask them what they think about CR.
Another problem with consumer reports is that all the data is self reported. This opens the door to all kinds of consumer perception. For example, cars stereotypically driven by older drivers like lincoln and oldsmobile before it was axed rank highly, as the elderly are less likely to complain if the sync audio system or whatever breaks because they are less likely to use it in the first place. Youth oriented brands like Scion rank lower because young people are more likely to complain about every insignificant detail and blame the car for driver error (such as not knowing how to properly drive a manual transmission car). Also people use the forms to claim to own cars that they don't and either praise their dream car or crap on their car's race rival. Don't believe me? Consumer Reports received over two times as many reports from Ferrari Enzo "owners" as there were Enzos produced.
Thirdly, consumer reports frequently groups cars by country of origin ( American cars, Japanese cars, German cars). This means that if Ford builds really reliable cars but GM and MOPAR don't Ford suffers from the faults of its neighbors (Just an example. I'm a GM guy). Also if Honda, Nissan and Mazda build really reliable cars but Suzuki doesn't, they get the boost from their neighbors (once again just an example).
Fourthly most of their data is taken from three year old models. Most modern cars are still under warranty at this time and have had no major problems. What really matters is 5 or 10 years down the line. Consumer reports doesn't have any where near enough data in this time frame and even if they did, it wouldn't necessarily be relevant. By that time, the cars have likely under gone major reengineering, so it has no real bearing on what new car you should buy. And if you think that you should buy from a car maker that has been historically reliable, look at all the quality issues Toyota has been having lately. CEOs change, Engineers change, corporate design philosophy changes.
Lastly, until a recent Honda slipup (the manual transmissions in newer accords and civic SI), Honda and Toyota were assumed "5 star reliability" in the 3 year period between when a new model came out and CR could collect data on three year old ones, where as every other manufacturer had to prove it. This is clearly prejudiced. Every manufacturer has had quality issues at some point, including Honda and Toyota, and contrary to popular belief, Toyota has had recalls and quality issues prior to this recent accelerator scandal.
I could go on for days but the point is CR sucks. If you want a great toaster, fine, see what CR has to say. If you want a nice car, you are going to have to do some more research. If you really want to see some CR hate, fine a Suzuki Samurai enthusiast forum and ask them what they think about CR.
Kinda describes a 1970s Volvo station wagon too (except those didn't have a V6 or 4x4, their gas tanks were smaller but on the other hand they got slightly better gas mileage, they were rated for 3,500lbs towing, and their turn radius was ridiculously tight).
(just saying
)
Not when its certified pre owned with an all inclusive warranty to 100k. BMW here I come...I'm looking at you 2-3 year old M3s/335s!
I like the SYNC in the Fusion, but the interior is just a little off. The Altima is great, if not a burner, and I think the interior is warmer and nicer than the TSX, but the TSX seats were the most comfortable things I've ever sat in.
I vote for the TSX. Acuras typically hold their value, and it's a nice sport sedan. Get a RAV4 if you want me to break out the purse comments again. SUVs built on car chassis' don't count!
Fusion: Looks like a mom car, weak 4 cyl. pretty good v6. Stay away from the AWD model from 2007.
Altima: I'd stay away from the sub 2006 model v6s. They have two timing belt tensioners that are plastic and wear out at the 125k mark. It is a 14 hr job.... its very expensive job (pull motor), that WILL eventually happen no matter what.
Subaru's: Previous body style (not sure of years, somebody corrected me on the new ones) had weak input/output shafts on the wrxs. I dont know anything else about suburus
Rav4: The new ones looks good and the 4cyl is an awesome motor. The sub 2000s had head gasket issues.
Acura TSX: Great cars, good motors. The tiptronic transmission option had a few bugs in it in the first year...not sure what year that is. Basically a spiced up camry. I like this one for your pick.
Any 4 cylinder car can "destroy" any natural aspirated stock cobra.
Here's what you don't understand. Any 4 cylinder car going that fast is turbocharged and modded beyond belief, if you mod a corvette say that much, you have a GT1 race car. Yea you can take a minivan, and make it run 10's. Means nothing. A natural aspirated STI... would get spanked by me... on foot... So when you look at fast cars, you look at Corvettes, Astin Martins etc. Watch some GT1. Why dont you see 6 cylinder, or 4 cylinder cars racing? Because no matter what you do to them, they wont compete with the C6-R or the DB9-R. So yea you may see a civic beat an occasional muscle car, but I have never seen a naturally aspirated 4 cylinder beat a naturally aspirated 8 cylinder.
And I still think American cars are just as reliable as any Asian. Just because one magazine says that, other magazines will stand by the American brands. Its an opinion. My opinion I'll go with the American.