Automotive Forums

Hi,

    Please bear with me, I realize this is a long post. I just recently turned 23, as well as graduated college, and am now in the process of purchasing my first car. I've been in and out of dealerships the last couple of weeks and have done an inordinate amount of research to boot; thus, I've essentially narrowed it down to the '07 V6 Mustang & 07' Toyota Rav4. I realize they are too completely different vehicles, but first let me state my situation.

    I ordinarily do not care for SUVs, but have felt the need for something large enough to accomodate my gigantic telescope and less importantly provide ample room for my art work on separate occassions. My telescope is nearly 100 pounds and 5 something feet tall, looks like a canon. Fortunately, it separates into two pieces, and I'm fairly sure the lower portion upright, would just barely fit into the Rav4. One major question, however, is how often I would actually feel the urge to load up my telescope and head for darker skies, and if I did, would the telescope be damaged in the process?

 That being said, the Mustang, on the other hand, does not give me that option, but fulfills my non-pracitical desires. I'm a guy and I'm aware the RAV4 has the reputation of being a girl car (although I think it's an attractive SUV), and the Mustang being very much the contrary in that respect. I have a certain affinity for the Mustang, but it's hard to rationalize purchasing the Mustang over the RAV4. The RAV4 has better fuel econonmy, the base model is more than likely cheaper, and does not have rear wheel drive. I'm trying to cut costs as much as possible, and pay at most 300 a month for 36 months, with a max downpayment of 3000 (this is lease of course). I know both cars are sold for under 300 a month, stripped of certain amenities of course. I don't know if I could endure a vehicle with a suspect reliability reputation and I've heard the dangers of rear wheel drive on slippery roads. The Toyota salesman, needless to say, blasted the Mustang, stating that it was nothing more than a 'fairweather' car that owners would seldom use during the winter months. Here on Long Island, our winters are hit or miss, but is it true, that rear-wheel drive does impose certain dangers with inclement weather?

  My heart is with the Mustang, but I'd greatly appreciate it if  somebody could provide me with meaningful feedback.

                  Thanks,
                      Dan  

Well you've certainly posed an interesting question.  Ultimately, you have to decide if being unable to transport your telescope and artwork for the next few years is worth it if you get the mustange.  Then again, I wonder if there might be other options that you might consider.  

Since the RAV4 and Mustange are completely different cars, I suppose the only way to judge them is relative to their category.  The RAV4 fits nicely into a saturated small-suv class and competes well.  

The Mustang is a different story.  Very few automakers offer a rear-drive "sports" car in the low $20Ks.  For some, rear drive is a MUST, because they may believe that its necessary for proper handling and acceleration.  But you're obviously not a rear-drive fan, as you are even concerned that rear drive might be dangerous in bad weather.  So I can only assume that the primary attraction to the Mustang for you is its style.  If that's the case, the nothing anyone says will change your mind, since nothing looks like the Mustang, and very few cars in that price range are as overtly stylish.  

But if your attraction to the mustang is based on an impression of sportiness or performance, I suggest you reevaluate.  

The last time I drove a current-generation V6 mustange, I was deeply unimpressed with everything but its style.  Sitting in the low seat never felt like a "low-slung" sports car, but rather, like a truck that'd been slammed to the ground.  Its high cowl and intrusive dashboard gave me a gun-slit view out the windshield.  Even worse, that huge dashboard was constructed of nasty, hard, cheap-feeling plastic that would have been unacceptable in a cheap car made 10 years ago.  Buttons didn't quite fit right, and the controls and switches all felt as though they were seriously compromised by cost-cutting.  Those little gauges set WAY back in their instrument binnacle exacerbated the overwrought feeling of the whole interior.  

I was somewhat impressed by the grunt of the V6--it's certainly not slow.  And the 5 speed automatic was smooth and had very closely spaced 1st, 2nd, and 3rd gears, making acceleration brisk with no power fall-off between gears.  

But then, pretty much everything else, like the interior, felt cheap and low-budget.  The engine, which is the same as that in the V6 Explorer, felt like what it was: a truck engine.  It grumbled and weezed under acceleration, and stopped making meaningful power above 5000 RPM--hardly sporty.  The huge steering wheel was lifeless, providing no "feel" for the road, and a few quick turns revealed that the chassis was competent, but about as boring as any front-wheel-drive family sedan.  

I feel like the Mustang is a car of enormous compromises.  Ford counts on buyers of the V6 models to allow the styling and historic "Mustang" nameplate to overshadow severe driving dynamics and quality shortcommings.  For a bit over $25, you can get a 300HP V8 mustang, with its truly powerful V8, and a bit more buttoned-down handling.  That changes things a bit, especially if you MUST have the noise and power of a proper V8.  But even at an affordable $21K-23K, a V6 mustang seems to me like a stylish shell filled with cheap parts.  

So if the choice boils down to an affordable SUV or an affordable "sporty" coupe, what is it that you're looking for in the coupe?  

If decent style, sensible packaging, high feature-content, and reasonable performance are important to you, why not consider something like the Scion TC?  

No, the Scion isn't as flashy as a mustang.  But I think it's got great proportions, and basically everythign else about the car is superior, especially if you're willing to pay what you would for a mustang.  COnsider this: the Scion comes with the usual power windows/locks, a good stereo with MP3 and Ipod compatability, a huge sunroof that extends from the front seats to the back window, keyless remote locks, and the usual safety features like ABS and side airbags--for about $17K.  If you option one up to the price of a well-equipped V6 mustang, you can put basically every single option possible into it, including any number of the dozens of interior color trim options, shifter knobs, pedals, neon piping, whatever, AND a TRD dealer-installed (and factory warranteed) supercharger that brings the engine up to 200HP.  

Add to that the fact that the Scion is an excellent handling front drive car with a stylish interior (that makes the Mustang look like it's from the 80s), quality fit/finish, and toyota reliability, and I can't see how a mustang would even compete---unless, of course, the styling is the primary concern.  

Anyway, I suggest you at least look into other options in the $20K range because at the very least, you might realize that there area number of excellently engineered cars that provide the brisk pace of a sporty car with the quality and practicality of a...less-than-sporty-car.  

One more thing, I really don't know what $300/month lease payments will get you, but I'm assuming it's in the low to mid $20Ks.  With that in mind, if you want a bit of speed to make up for the lack of sport in the RAV4, keep in mind that the RAV4 is available with an unusually powerful 270HP 3.5L V6 that will blow the doors off a V6 mustang.  And consider the fact that the Mustang's huge 4.0 Liter V6 makes a sleepy 210HP from half-a-liter displacement more than the 270 HP toyota V6.  

Wow, I really appreciate your thoughtful/insightful response! You are correct, my sole reason for buying the Mustang would be for the nameplate/style, and to support American automakers, as I am aware (as is anyone) of the dire market situation that exists. Like I said in my initial post, my decision revolves around whether I will get a practical car, that would support my telescope and artwork, or a Mustang - and that's about it. The Scion TC seems to be an attractive option, although I'm not sure the monthly payments of a well-equipped 200 hp version would be on the 'preferred' side of $300/month, nor do I necessarily want a car for speed (although it doesn't hurt), but rather one that is simply quick and economical. The Mustang with its 210 horses is peppy enough for my needs in that respect.

   I do concur with you that the Mustang's interior is very unimpressive, but for some strange reason I have a special affinity towards the cheap plastic look. Perhaps what prompted this was taking a ride in my cousin's mid-90s Firebird all those years back, and thus I became somewhat appreciative of that look. And I do feel the Mustang is hands down the most appealing car within its affordable price range from the exterior. I wasn't particularly in awe of the vehicle until Ford decided to go retro with the frontal lights a few years back, and the 125 different hue gauges couldn't better reaffirm retro chessiness. My Dad, on the other hand, feels it's bland in comparison to the Mustang he had owned in the late 60s. I say the car hasn't looked more like it did then than it does now.

     Anyway, the attractiveness of the Mustang is not really pertinent to my question, but rather let me pose this question to you: Do you find rear-wheel drive to be particularly dangerous in bad weather, including the rain? I realize most sport and performance cars (BMW, Jaguar, Mercedes, etc) use this very drivetrain, and some of the aformentioned prestigious automakers gear their cars towards families. I'd like to know, since I am still wet behind the ears when it comes to this stuff, and I'm wondering if the Mustang would skid uncontrollably in the very puddle that has emanated from behind my ears.
In addition to that, despite being recommended by Consumer Reports and Edmunds, the Mustang is not considered particularly reliable. In what ways would this affect me?

   As of this moment, it seems I'd go with something along the lines of a RAV4, the Japanese cars are just too good and reliable for the money to pass up. 199 a month for a Camry, can't think of a better deal. Granted, you pay a few bucks extra, but that's a treadmendous deal for such a car. Besides, my Dad has commended me greatly for doing such heavy research, therefore I'd be amiss in selecting an imperfect vehicle like that of the Mustang. The jury is still out though, I'm still suspectible to change my mind within the next few minutes.

The other two majors contenders are the Honda CR-V and Element. My interest in the RAV-4 more than likely negates the CR-V, as they are very similar vechicles. The Element, however, is a viable option in its own right. I wouldn't pass on being among one of the many Element aficionados; it is rather intriguing to see such a supportive bunch of car owners. It is definately a versatile vehicle (albeit hideous), as I could perhaps live in it, that is if I have trouble finding my own place within the next year. I'd be inclined to say it is somewhat cute in an ugly way, just as the most homely looking infants have a trace of adorableness.

The Jeep Liberty and Mazda CX-7 have outsides chances, as they are not particularly fuel efficient. The latter vehicle, does offer generous power for as low as 279 a month - 244hp turbo, but I'd pass on a car that gets 14 mpg in the city and is in need of premium gas too boot. Ironically, the Mustang has the worst fuel economy of the 4 major contenders, and it is pathetically the only non-SUV of the bunch.

The V6 RAV-4 is very nice. I test drove it as the salesman had "inadvertently" put one out after I had requested the 4 cylinder over the phone, which I subsequently would drive as well. Man, the V6  was quick and handled wonderfully, not that the V4 was any sort of slouch. The V6 monthly payments, however, would exceed my budget and approach $400 for the most stripped down version that is.
The base model, anti-luxury, front wheel drive version of the V4 that is on the table is 289 a month with a 3000 dollar downpayment. I'm convinced I could haggle with Toyota though.

I don't mean to bore you with every facet of my decision making process or my life story for that matter. I did get a lot out of your post though, and I am very much appreciative. I will take another look at the sedans/coupes within my price range, including the Scion TC.

Thanks,
  DQ  

Glad to see that my response was helpful.  

Regarding the mustang and rear-wheel drive/reliability:

Firstly, it's hard to tell whether the Mustang will be adequately reliable, since it's only been available for a couple years.  Then again, Ford doesn't have the realiability reputation, especially with newer models, that the japanese makers do.  Add to that the fact that everything about the ford's build quality screams cheapness, and I would simply avoid it.  BUT...don't forget that if you're leasing for 3 years or so, everything will be covered under warrantee for the duration of your lease.  In a worst case scenario, in which the car has occasional glitches like failed window lifts, check-engine lights, broken interior bits, or various strange noises, repairs will be covered under warrantee, and only the inconvenience will be an issue.  

Secondly, I'm not sure what your experience with Rear wheel drive (RWD) is, but it's only "dangerous" (if you can even call it that) in certain circumstances.  So let's talk about RWD, it's advantages, and it's disadvantages for a moment.  

RWD is the preferred driveline arrangement for high performance cars because it splits the duties of steering and accelerating among all four tires.  This provides three primary advantages.  Firstly, high-powered front-drive cars suffer from "torque steer" --when you stomp the accelerator, the steering wheel "comes alive" in your hands and tries to steer left and right as you accelerate.  A firm hold on the wheel is sufficient to prevent any actauly left/right movement, but it's somewhat annoying.  Combine hard accelerations with turns, and you need to have a very firm hold on the wheel to keep the car pointed in the direction you want to go.  Secondly, because a RWD car doesn't need an exceptionally powerful power steering system to deal with torque steer and increased weight over the front wheels (due to the transmission and engine being located up front), it tends to have a more accurate and "pure" feel to it.  In other words, since the front wheels are "only" managing turning, it's theoretically easier to endow the steering system with a more intuitive feel that isn't jerked around by torque-steer or otherwise affected by acceleration.  Thirdly, both acceleration and cornering on dry pavement are theoretically enhanced by splitting the turning/acceleration duties between the front and rear wheels.  When you accelerate hard, weight transfers to the rear end, and thus, the rear end is given enhanced traction.  If the original wieght distribution is near 50%front and 50%rear, then acceleration will give the rear tires a greater proportion of the wieght, and straight-line accelertaion is enhanced.  Note: this is only relevant if the engine delivers enough power to cause traction problems during hard acceleration.  When cornering, and then accelerating hard out of the corner, as you might when on a race track, rear drive allows you to steer with the fronts, and accelerate with the rears, thus give all 4 wheels a job, and utilizeing all four tires in the process.  A skilled driver can also used rear wheel drive to his advantage by breaking traction at the rear using excess power, and thus "pointing" the car in the direction he wants to go without increasing his steering wheel angle.  

Unfortunately, very few of these "advantages" hold true for a V6 mustang.  Firstly, the steering wheel "feel," although not corrupted by torque-steer, is not particularly communicative in the first place.  Despite being Front Wheel drive, any Mazda or Honda, and many Toyotas and Nissans are far better.  Secondly, A V6 mustang is not powerful enough to enhance dry-weather hard acceleration.  Thirdly, because the V6 Mustang is not particularly powerful, or particularly well-handling, any inherent "race track" advantage of RWD will be negated by the overall superiority of the afformentioned FWD cars' chassis design and tuning.

As for RWD safety:  
It used to be that the Argument for Front-Wheel-Drive was increased traction in all situations because the majority of the weight was over the front wheels--because both the engine, transmission, and differential were mounted transversly (sideways) almost directly over the front wheels.  And that was pretty much true 20-30 years ago when most RWD cars were big American cars that had huge, heavy, iron V8 engines in front, and hardly any weight in the rear.  Today, however, most automakers try to balance cars as much as possible, and BMW, for example, prides itself on providing 50/50 weight distribution on nearly all of its rear-drive cars.  If I recall correctly, the V6 mustang has a 53/47 front/rear weight distribution, which means that the rear wheels don't necessarily have LESS traction than the fronts.  

Which brings me to the point at hand:  RWD safety is not necessarily about how MUCH traction you have, as it is about the way the car behaves when you lose traction.  Take a typical street-driving case:  

You're driving a front wheel drive car in the rain, and you're taking a basic street corner, or you're going around a highway entrance ramp.  You're going fast enough that you're using 80% of the front tire's traction (which might not be very fast if the on-ramp is slick).  Then you try to accelerate somewhat hard--not flooring it, but not *** it either.  You've now asked the front tires to both turn the car AND accelerate the car.  In doing so, you've exceeded the tires' traction limits.  Because the FWD car has lost traction on the front wheels only, your car will "understeer"--that is, it will steer wide of the indented path.  Since you were in control and inwithin the limits of traction BEFORE you tried to accelerate, all you need to do to control the situation is back off the accelerator, thus eliminating the extral load on the front tires and slowing the car, and traction will be restored.  It's a very safe way of "loosing control."  And that's exactly what proponents of FWD like.  But it's not fun, and in a sports car, it limits the racing driver's ability to work with the car to both exceed the limits of traction AND go faster.  That's why sports cars have RWD.  You're not a race driver, so forget that last part.  

Now, you're in a Mustang, or any other RWD car.  You're performing the same maneuver at the same 80%-of-maximum speed.  You press the accelerator to firmly accelerate while rounding the slippery corner.  But because the rear wheels are providing propulsion only, you don't suddenly overload the front tires.  So you push the accelerator a bit more, and instead of simply "understeering" as you would in a front-drive car, you break traction at the rear.  As a result, the rear end swings wide, and you suddenly have to turn the wheel in the opposite direction to correct the fish-tail slide.  

I appoligize if this concept is familiar to you already, and if I'm being patronizing by going it such length about it.  But since you were curious about the safety of RWD, I figured it might be helpful.  

So, is this unsafe?  Well, for the extremely inexperienced driver who doesn't even know whether he/she is driving a FWD or RWD car, then yet.  It can be confusing, and if you keep your food on the accelerator, or loose rear-wheel traction suddenly enough, you can spin all the way around and end up facing the wrong direction.  And not all pavement is created equal.  Some asphalt and cement pavements are very sticky in the wet, while others are much much more slippery.  In fact, town, a northern suburb of Chicago, most pavements are virtually unchanged when wet.  But the on/off ramps of the nearby expressway are a fine-grain cement treated with a weather-proofing coating for longevity.  The result is that they are SHOCKINGLY slippery when wet, almost as bad as being snow-covered, and even my hot-rod self is reduced to piddling around these ramps at less than 20 MPH.  In situations like these, a RWD car would be very hard to control.  But then, every other on/off ramp in the country that I've driven on is not as slippery.  

As for the Jeep Liberty and Mazda CX-7:

Forget the Jeep.  It's an old design that was never particularly refined in the first place, and gets big-truck fuel economy with small-car performance.  I assume you're not interested in heavy off-roading, which is the only reason why you'd ever want a jeep over the japanese contenders.  

The CX-7, on the other hand, is a fantastic car.  It's also marketed towards fairly wealthy people, as it requires premium fuel, gets poor Gas mileage, and probably requires expensive synthetic-oil changes due to the turbo.  Frankly, I'm suprised that you can lease one for less than $290/month, as the list prices is well above that of every other car you're considering. Buf if you want a bit of syle, performance, and class in a package that will hold your telescope and artwork, I can't think of a better SUV than the CX-7.  The interior is, I think, very stylish without being over-wrought and "metalic" like the RAV4.  The turbo engine delivers huge Torque, and the turbo spools up early to deliver big punch at all RPMs. And its chassis is based on the Mazda6, which is one of the best handling mid-size sedans at any price.  With lease prices that low, I'd probably bite the bullet and accept the poor mileage and other expensive aspects--but that's just me.



Plus, the Mustang is available with an $800 ABS/Traction control option.  I think ABS is a MUST for any modern car, and should be standard.  The rest of the country agrees, and so I doubt you'll even be able to find a Mustang without the ABS/Traction control (TC) package.  So your mustang will likely feature TC, which will sense any excess rear-wheel-spinning, and automatically reduce engine power and apply the brakes to the Rear wheels to prevent it.  Thus, you probably couldn't slide the rear end around if you tried.  

Bottom line: if you're worried about RWD safety, don't be.  A bit of skill, and TC help will ensure that you're no less capable of driving in the wet than in a FWD car.  


Regarding the alternative RAV4, CRV, and Element:

The RAV4 is a great car, as you no doubt are aware of.  But if you're also considering the Hondas, I wonder if you might be happier with them.  Since the V6 RAV4 seems to be out of your price range, I think that the CRV or Element might be a bit more fun to drive.  Although the 2.4L 4Cyl RAV4 isn't slow, as you noted, it's also pretty....well boring.  And the new CRV isn't exciting, but I find the CRV to be the superior car if only the 4 Cyl engines are considered.  Firstly, the CRV's 2.4L 4Cyl is identical in size and power to the Toyota's, but I find it more torquey (lending a more powerful FEEL to it), smoother, and better sounding.  I also find the CRV's interior to be more classy and reserved than the RAV4's without being boring.  As for the element, well, it's bascially a CRV with different bodywork and those unique rear-hinged back doors.  I find it an attractive design in the utilitarian sense, and it shares all of the engine/drivetrain goodness of the CRV.  Make sure you drive all three before you decide.  And if you're looking for a manual transmission, be SURE to drive the hondas, as they are surprisingly more spirited with it.  

Some other alternatives:

Subaru Forrester:
It's a bit more Boxy than the rest, and based on an older platform than the rest, but it's still darn good.  it's probably among the best handling small SUVs, and with the base 2.5L 4cyl engine, it's just as punchy as the the RAV4 and CRV.  Plus, unlike those two, it comes standard with an excellent 4WD system that's more capable than the others.  I donno what it would do to lease prices, but a Forrester XT, with the 230HP turbo engine is really quite fast, and since it's lighter than the CX-7, it's one of the quickest SUVs on the market.  I believe that various magazines have tested the manual transmission Forrester XT at around 5.5 seconds 0-60MPH--shockingly close to that of the V8 Mustang GT.  

Various Wagons:  
Why not combine the hauling capability of an SUV with the sporting/handling capability of a car?  Many people thing wagons are lame, but not me.  The Passat wagon is available in base form for about $23K, and offers a suprisingly punchy 200HP turbo 4Cyl, a good chassis, a solid body, and shockingly rich interior/exterior fit and finish.  

The Subaru Legacy wagon and Outback wagon are both highly reliable cars that also offer excellent handling, and the same reasonably punchy 2.5L 4 Cyl that the base forrester does.  I find the exterior to be unusually classy, and the interior to be almost BMW-like.  

The Volkswagen Rabbit 4dr is also reasonably priced, and despite it's "entry level" status, is shockingly well-made and richly appointed, with a torquey 5 Cylinder engine, truly capable handling, and an Audi-like interior.  

Mitsubishi is in a rut, but this provides a serious advantage for you.  They seem to be constantly offering excellent financing and lease deals, and their all-new V6-only Outlander is a fresh design with good performance and fresh styling.  Mitsu has an excellent reputation for reliability, and should be considered as dependable as Toyota, Honda, and Subaru....maybe.

So talk about a long post!  Hope this is helpful.  Keep asking questions if you have them.  

I forgot to address the issue of buying American.  

I totally understand the desire to support the ailing American brands.  Unfortunately, they're going bankrumpt becuase the're building sub-standard cars.  But beyond that, consider the fact that any toyota you buy is probably designed in California and Built in America.  Any Honda you buy is also built in America.  Same for Mitsubishi.  I'm too lazy to look up where some Mazdas are built, but Mazda is owned wholly by Ford.  Subaru is owned by Fuji Heavy Industries, in which GM is a significant shareholder, and Subaru just opened up plants in the U.S.  

Today's global economy makes patriotic buying-decisions largely irrelevant.  GM builds many of their large-volume sedans in Mexico and Canada, and the same goes for Ford and Chrysler.  Meanwhile all of the japanese brands have plants in America, and shockingly, so does Mercedes and BMW.  

Speedracer,

You can't understand how appreciative I am of your help!!! You didn't have to write a novel without compensation, that is very nice of you...and don't worry, I read it all, your efforts didn't go in vain. This Monday, I had eliminated the RAV-4, and was convinced it was down to just the Mustang and Honda Element. I am reconsidering other cars once again, ugh, as the paramount question still remains: just how much space do I need to accomodate my telescope? The Element would contain it with ease, and I was the utmost impressed with the functionality of the design, despite it being kind of ugly (in a cute way though). The Element is also an intriguing option b/c it is geared towards my demographic - young active people on the go. The CR-V, on the other hand, is more for 30-something Moms with kids, although it is still a great car. The Honda dealership in my neck of the woods, however, is devoid of them; a testament to the quality/popularity of the CR-V.

But, like I said earlier, I'm beginning to wonder just how small a car I could go while still providing ample room for my telescope. Wagon? Hatchback?!?!  If it could possibly fit in such a small car (which I highly doubt) I would consider the Mazda 3, Subaru Impreza, Passat Wagon, etc.

The CX-7 is an attractive price. I'm surprised I could get it for as low as 279 a month, please note, however, this is the bare version of the car: cloth interior, etc. Still a great price, but I would prefer not to spend an arm and a leg on gas. You did get me interested in this car again, as I had practically crossed it off my list.

As of the right now, I'd probably go with a Honda Element. I better buy something quickly before my mind changes : P

Thanks once again!!

- DQ  

Glad to hear that my comments are helpful.  I guess it's no secret that I like talking about cars.

Anyway, the element is certainly a good car.  But I have a couple comments about the other cars that you mentioned.  

The Mazda3 and Subaru Impreza are certainly great cars.  I think the Mazda is the best "small" car you can buy, and surpasses many much more expensive cars in areas of refinement, style, interior quality, and especially handling.  But it's not a particularly roomy wagon.  You'd have to bring your telescope to a dealer to be sure that it fits in the back.  If it does... i'd recommend it over anything we've discussed so far.  

You mention the Mazda and Subaru in the same breath as the VW passat.  Make no mistake, the Passat is MUCH bigger than either of those, and two or three huge steps up in refinement as well.  It's a great car--heck, just turn on the lights at night and bask in the glow of spot-on blue and red interior lighting that illuminates absolutely every button and switch, right down to the map lights in the back seats.  But VW dealers are also notorious for turning their collective noses up at the idea of cheap lease pricing and low APR financing.  They expect their customers to pay what their cars are worth, much to their detriment, as I'm sure plenty frustrated customers walk out of their dealers and right into a toyota Camry.  

TAKE YOUR TIME!  Don't buy a car because you don't want to have to deal with it anymore.  Look at the VW Jetta, Mazda3, Mitsubishi outlander, etc.  You won't go wrong at all in a Honda element.  But it seems like you're defaulting to that car instead of lusting after it.  Perhaps "sensible" cars aren't exactly lustworthy, but I find plenty of emotionally gratifying aspects of Mazdas, VWs, and Subarus.  

Now for a few updates.  

The New Scion XB is now available.  It's a huge departure from the weird boxy thing that it used to be.  It's still boxy, but now it's--I donno--stylishly boxy.  And the biggest news is that it's now much larger, and is available with the same 2.4 liter engine that pretty much all of Toyota's 4 Cyl cars have.  Check it out.  If you're attracted to the Element for it's "cute" utilitarianism, you might find the Scion XB to be a huge step above that in both style and untilitarianism.  

The Nissan Roque should be available any minute now.  It's a "small" SUV that should compete with the RAV4, yet it looks EXACTLY like a Nissan Murano, which I find to be particularly stylish.  

The new Nissan Altima Coupe is also now available, and it looks *** good.  In sedan form, the altima is somewhat stylish, and exceptionally sporty compared to its competition.  The Coupe doesn't add any more performance, but certainly makes it a desireable car for its looks alone.  

Anyway, keep looking untill you find something you really like.  No sense in paying $300 a month for a compromise right?  

Thanks once again!

 I can attest to that being true about VW, as I hail from a family of VW owner, and let me tell you, the lease payments are exorbitant. I went to the VW dealer last Thursday and they were trying to sell me a preowned Passat Wagon with 39,000 miles on the odometer for what I wanted to pay for a new car. The Passat is luxurious, but I think one could do better for the money, well at least the starting MSRP should be lower than 25,000 for a car with middling power. I could imagine the V6 version surpasses the 30 k mark easily.

Honestly, I never did heavily consider the Mazda3 and Impreza. My scope would fit very snugly at best, but I doubt the two aforementioned cars have the necessary space to accomodate it to begin with. The Mazda3speed seems intriguing, you seem to get a lot for the money, but I find it too closely resembles my brother's new GTI.

As for my decision being a compromise, well, that is not entirely true. It is hard, however, to lust after a practical car like you mentioned. But this being my first car and all, I will be deeply appreciative of whatever I decide on. For the most part, I am passionate about the Element, but three things in particular bother me. 1) I love the quirky nature of the vehicle, but perhaps it is a bit too quirky for my taste, in the looks department specifically 2) Certain back pillars may compromise visibility 3) It received a star less on the rollover test than the RAV-4 and CR-V.

Aside for that, I'm most fond of the Element. I am once again, however, am considering the CR-V heavily, and maybe even the RAV-4. I'm not really getting very far I know.

The Mustang, on the other hand. which I thought I had eliminated for good last night keeps reentering the picture. I'm like a wayward girl that cannot resist the temptation of a guy w/ a hot body that she and everyone knows has little good to offer. In every other area, aside for looks and ample power for the money, the Mustang is seemingly a slouch. I've read some nightmarish anecdotal accounts of its reliability woes on Yahoo Auto Review. This one <temporary>  Mustang needed a completely new transmission within 36 hours of purchasing the car...new. In all fairness, however, most Mustang owners are ever ethusiastic about their vehicles, and experience only minor problems throughout their courtship.  Ultimately, the Mustang received a 4.5 out 5 stars from 242 reviewers. For a three year lease, do you think the Mustang is that egregious of a decision. I know you've already supplied me with your 2 cent concerning the Mustang.

I will have to look into the Nissan Roque. I infer it is cheaper than the Murano, or else I can't see why you'd recommend it to me.

Thanks,
 DQ  

Oh, before I forget. I've test driven both the Element and CR-V, as well as many other cars. Something I was not particularly fond of, and I'm not sure how beter to explain this, was that the car barely seemed as if it was on while in drive or reverse without me applying my foot to the gas. I've noticed that cars vary tremendously in this respect, and I'm more fond of naturally quicker cars so that I'm not expected to accelerate out of driveways or parking spots. I realize there must be a simpler way or stating this.  

Boy, the FJ Cruiser is one striking vehicle w/ very resonable starting rates. It's about time one of the big Japanese automakers thought of making an overtly stylish vehicle. Perhaps the car is too close to its SUV roots, however, poor visibility and gas mileage.  

It's too bad a used Passat commands a monthly payment similar to that of a new car.  Which version was it?  I ask because I'd imagine a 1.8T 4Cyl passat with a reasonable non-leather option package would be plenty affordable.  I suppose I wouldn't be recommending a used car when you're in a position to afford perfectly excellent new cars, but like you, my parents have been driving passats for almost 10 years.  I absolutely adore my mom's 2002 wagon, in a classy slate-green without leather, but with heated seats and mirrors, sunroof, and monsoon stereo.  The thing about Passats of that vintage (going up to 2005 I think), is that the 1.8T base engine is actaully better than the V8.  It has "middling" power on paper, but the small, quick-spooling turbo delivers maximum thrust at 2000 RPMs, and then keeps delivering it through something like 5500RPM.  The result is a car that scoots far more forcefully than its numbers suggest.  The V6, on the other had, is more powerful on paper, but is actaully slower in most situations thanks to a gutless torque response below 3000 RPM, and no real "sweat spot" in which the engine really charges hard.  

As for the funky off-throttle behavior of the CRV while in drive or reverse:  I'm assuming you're driving automatics.  If so, this is not an indication of accelerative ability or anything.  The torque converter, which uses a viscous fluid pumped from on propellor (on the engine side) to an impellor (or turbine) on the transmisison side, is tuned to minimize "creep."  This saves gas, as the engine can idle more freely.  GM cars are notorious for having virtually no creep, and it's actaully one of the only things I actually like about GM cars.  I remember my parents' old 93 Acura Legend wad so much creep, my foot would get tired of firmly holding the brake pedal down while stuck in traffic or waiting at a stoplight.  

As for the FJ Cruiser, you've pretty much summed up its pros and cons.  It's pretty cool looking, and an excellently rendered retro Land-Cruiser revival.  But it's loaded with compromises, such as the awful visibility, ridiculously difficult access to the back seats, and the inherent poor gas mileage and truck-like handling of it's truck-based chassis.  Actually, unernieth the body work, it's a Toyota 4runner, which I think is one of the best truck-chassis SUVs available.  Still, you can't get around more than 4000lb of weight, and a big 4.0 Liter V6.  

Did you take a look at the Scion XB?  Check out the website.  

You know, it occured to me that if you're open to wagons (I can't figure out why Wagons are so unpopular in this country), there's a couple others that are really excellent.  

The Subaru Legacy wagon and Outback wagon (they're the same, and the outback offers more rugged tires and rugged-looking exterior body cladding) is excellent.  I know I've already mentioned it, but let me reiterate that it's a great handling, good-looking wagon with a very nice interior--almost up to Passat standards (though not quite).  I don't know what leasing is like with Subaru, but a well-equipped wagon without leather or other premium options should come in around $23K--which includes all the usual electric convenience items and nice alloy wheels.  I'd definately recommend the 5 speed manual transmission though, because the 4 speed automatic doesn't have enough gears to make the most of the engine.  It's not slow, but not exciting either.

The Mazda6 comes in a wagon as well.  I'm pretty sure they're only available in V6 form, which is good for performance, but probably gives you a starting price of $25K at least.  Since the more expensive CX-7 is affordable when lease, I suppose maybe the more efficient Mazda6 is as well.  But I bet there are a few low-mileage used examples around. The car itself is excellent, and easily has the best handling front-drive chassis available on the market today.  I find it really nice to look at, and the interior, while not superb like the VW, is at least stylish, and exceptionally well made, with buttons and switches that feel like they've been obsessed over by very demanding button-and-switch engineers.  Like the subaru, it's also a proper wagon with a great big rear cargo area that's easily as big as a CRV's or RAV4's, even if it's not quite as tall.  

Thanks again,

       The FJ Cruiser is one good looking vehicle in and out, but the dealership was expecting an absurd 5-9k over the suggested retail price...it does look more like 27-30 grand car upon first impression, but anyway, so long FJ.  Besides, it's not as I'm going to be driving along a suburban street one day and all of sudden be confronted by a large boulder that I must surmount. Until that happens, I think I'd be happier with something else.

    I checked out the Scion xB, and I must commend Toyota for being a purveyor of stylish/practical cars. That being said, despite the xB taking steps in the right direction (new engine and all), I see it as nothing more than an Element wannabee

    It's been over 3 weeks, since I stepped foot into my first dealership, and started this thorough investigation that has ultimately rendered me incapable of doing anything else, such as finding a job...I don't consider Abercrombie & Fitch a means of being solvent.  I believe I've narrowed it down to the 4 vehicles listed below, although, in all fairness, I haven't had a chance to look at the Outlander. I made an attempt tonight, but the Mitsubishi dealership apparently closed at 7pm - not doing too well like you said, well at least this specific dealership isn't. I know you discouraged Jeep already, but the Compass and Patriot are fairly intriguing, as they don't cater to Jeep's gas guzzling roots. Speaking of thirsty cars, I guess the Mazda CX-7 has an outside chance as well, only b/c it's a good price (stark base version mind you). I don't think I could possibly tolerate such a fuel inefficient car though. Add Mazda3 to the slim chance list, only b/c you said so   . Anyway, without further adieu, here are the four major contenders:

          Honda Element
                       CR-V
            Nissan Altima Coupe
            Ford Mustang

     At this juncture. the price is practically a deciding factor. I've come to realize that I can't have the best of both worlds, and that essentially an ideal car does not exist at my price range. That is, a car that could combine my need for space and sport. Wagons are basically out, since height is of chief importance for my telescope. I was just out with the scope tonight, and was flabberghasted with the amount of stars I could see amid such light pollution. This scope would certainly shine out east, under nice dark skies.  I'm fairly convinced pratically any car could accomodate my artwork, as I don't stretch my canvas. Another thing to take into consideration, is that I expect to find my own dwelling long before the 3 year lease is up...I hope. And my parents are of the clingy variety (although I consider my situation particularly unique) and I know, will take my leaving personally, believing it was something they did, rather than realizing it is the natural progession of things, specifically my Mom. That being the case, stashing my stuff in an Element or CR-V would seem far less obnoxious than actually getting a U-haul for the move.

   On the flipside, as I'm sure you can attest to this, there's certainly something rather special about driving a car as opposed to an SUV, mini-van, truck, etc. Aside for getting more attention from the ladies by going with a good looking coupe, the actual drives themselves, whether it''d be a quick turn or hugging the curves of a winding road, well, it just seems all the more worthwhile.

 I went to the Nissan dealership tonight and was impressed with the new Altima Coupe (great suggestion), as you can see by it's placement on my top 4 list. The 4-cylinder 170-hp was very spirited, and I could have been deceived into thinking I was driving something a tad more powerful. I could imagine the V6 is a beast. I also have a kinship towards Nissan, as I have been relying on my Dad's '06 Maxima as a means of transportation to places of debauchery for the last several months. The Maxima is a horse, as I'm sure you're aware of, but has a god-awful turning radius. Apparently, Nissan's enigneers felt Maxima owners would prefer to make u-turns on par with a retarded ferrett. The interior for both the Altima and Maxima leave a lot to be desired as well. Nevertheless, I am actually considering another car that could be compared to the Mustang, and I'd assume Nissan to be more reliable than Ford, that coupled with the Altima having better fuel economy, certainly makes things interesting. Contrary to the Mustang, the lease prices for the Altima were wonderful, although in all fairness, I am comparing an Altima stripped of all its amenties and a Mustang with certain costly features. And yet, the ball might be in my court in a month or two, if I were to be more patient, as I'm sure the Ford dealerships want to rid themselves of the '07s to make way for the '08s. The Element is at a good price. As for the CR-V,  I would have to get the absolute bottom of the line trim level(front wheel drive, no luxuries whatsoever) in order to get the payments comparable or cheaper to the Element EX. The Element has some amenities at a nice price, but naturally runs cheaper than the CR-V.

I wonder if there is, in fact, a way of satisfying both needs. Perhaps, I could get a trailer and attach it to the back of my coupe..although that might be dangerous given the way I drive.

What I do know for certain at this point, is that essentially whatever car of the 4 I wind up with in the end, I will admire it for its respective offerings. It would be nice to give my business to Honda, as I'm particularly fond of the Haitian salesman I have abused over three trips. It wouldn't seem right doing business elsewhere. I hope something like this doesn't sway my decision, as I have promised myself otherwise.

Thanks once again!

DQ  

DQ,

You seem to be having great difficulty making a choice.  All in the information and stats in the world won't help in making the ultimate, final decision.  The fact that the Mustang never really leaves your list, despite striking out in every single way except "cool exterior look" (and your fettish with cheap plastic interiors), tells a lot about your willingness to face facts.

Forget RWD and fish-tailing -- having a "gun-slit" view of the outside world while driving around is NOT the best starting point for a safe driving experience, no matter what the road conditions are.

So why lease?  This is what is really killing your options, not to mention finances.  Leasing a car, unless you have huge amounts of disposable cash, is about the only thing more foolish than actually buying a car.  Leasing is a glorified rental all things considered.  With most leases, you need to be very aware of your mileage since there is usually a limit.  After this limit is crossed (say 36k for a 3-yr lease), in addition to the cost of the lease, you now get tagged with mileage penalties.  And at 20 to 30 cents a miles over......this penalty can become very painful, very fast.

You should be thinking *Used Car*.  You're probably thinking, "yeah but thats why I want a lease, cuz I can't afford to pay out a large chunk".  If you can lease a car, you can get a loan to buy a used car.  Now maybe you're thinking, "but I don't want a loan, I just want to make payments".....or, "I don't have the credit to get a loan."  Ok....so why are you so eager to make payments toward something that will only be taken away from you after a few years (unless you plan on saving up for a ridiculous balloon payment)?  Or, if you don't have the credit stability to get a relatively small loan.....why are you so eager to jump into a $300 a month lease which you would then be just as likely to fall down on?

Instead buy a used car two, three or four years old with low miles.  This is the way to go.  A whole new world of opportunities emerges.  Instead of sitting on a wooden stool with wind-chimes as your radio in a striped-down version of whatever vehicle you're looking at, you can actually have cool stuff in your ride.  If you spend any amount of time driving around.....cool stuff in your car is cool to have.

Ok, before I say what I want to say next, I want to post a LARGE disclaimer: my advice remains good advice despite what I have to say next.  

I have a 2004 Mazda 3 Sport Hatch for sale, excellent condition, 44k, Really fun Activematic tranny.  KBB puts it at $15,300.  I'm asking $14,500.  Please email me @ Jasonzx9@gmail.com for more info & pics.

I ONLY mention my car because (a) you're in the market and (b) Speedracer has recommended this model for consideration.  Its also a good example of the greater affordability when buying used (as long as you don't buy older than 4 years, after which a used car becomes an old used car, which is bad).

Anyway, I wish you the best of luck getting your first set of wheels.  Oh, and here is my phone number just in case: 505-613-2842.  

jmac makes some really good points.  I had avoided talking about the whole leasing thing because some people either need to lease (to get through a tough financial time while driving a car of sufficient size or safety in the meantime), or, as jmac pointed out, are enticed by the idea of paying $350/month for a car that, when purchased and financed, would cost $450/month.  

So the question is, if I may, are you gonna be making the payments, or are your parents?  I ask because, as I'm sure you're aware, a car purchase/lease is such a huge financial drain on anyone's budget (hell, consider the fact that most people in this materialist country buy cars that cost more than HALF of their yearly income, and far too many buy cars that are 2/3-3/4 of their year income).  As a result, any car purchase should satisfy your utility needs, your desire for good design/quality/performance, and just as importantly, it should be a sound financial endeavor that doesn't bite you in the ass after the novelty of the car's "newness" has already worn off.

In many cases, leasing is a terrible long-term financial option.  Consider two case-studies of my own family:  

1.  In 1995, my parents leased a new Mercury Villager for a 5 year term.  They were "allowed" 12,000 miles per year, but because the car was the family's primary transport, and because I got my license just a year later, we racked up 60K miles in just 4 years.  In 1999, they bought a'97 Passat Wagon (a proper VR6 GLX with a manual transmission, which I absolutely loved), and parked the Villager in the garage for almost a full year to avoid the huge overage fees.  Still, little nicks, scratches, and a small dent in the front were scrutinized by the leasing firm upon the car's return in 2000, and they ended up paying $1000 in fees AFTER 5 years of monthly payments to drive it for only 4 years, and with no equity in the car to show for it.  

2. In 2000, my family's fanancial situation had taken a turn for the better, and they wanted to give me a car.  At the time, I was taking a break from college, and had no idea that when they "commissioned" me to find a 4dr sedan for around $17K, it would be given to me a year later in 2001 when I was due to return to college.  So I settled on the Mazda Protege ES for "them" and they leased it for a 3 year term. In late 2002, when I was studying in Europe, they again surprised me by buying "my" car out of the lease.  All well and good for me, and I certainly did feel privelaged to be driving a car I loved courtesy of my very generous parents.  But later, the wisdom of leasing would once again hurt all of us.  After paying a total of  $10K in lease payments over almost 3 years, the buyout price was $11,000.  They financed it for 5 years, and by 2006, decided that it was time I took over payments.  Fair enough, except that by then, they'd already payed over $20 for a then-6-year-old-car that cost $16.5K in the first place.  By the end of the loan term, we will have payed a grand total of more than $24,000 over 7 years.  

People who lease are often the ones who are comfortable simply making monthly payments for the rest of their lives, knowing that they can bounce from car to car every 3 years and never have to deal with out-of-warrantee repares, old-car quirks, and behind-the-curve fashion statements.  The realtive simplicity of this may make sense for people with extremely stable incomes.  But for today's youth (which I belong to), in today's somewhat unsteady economy, leasing a new car today will only deny you rightfully-deserved equity in your car down the road.  

Rare instances of lease-benefits exist, however.  I'm no accountant, and I'm particularly bad with numbers, but here's my simplified take on a situation in which a lease might be beneficial to a long-term owner.  

A reputable leasee will outline not only your monthly payments for the term (usually 3 years), but should also solidify the buy-out price at the end of that term.  Buying-out relinquishes you from any responsibility for damage or over-mileage.  So, let's say your car costs $25,000, you lease it for $370/month.  Your car is a honda, so it retains it value very well.  It's retail price after the 3 year lease is $16,000, but the buyout price for you is only $12,000.  In this case, you've essentially "bought" the car in the beginning, payed a far lower monthly payment than you would have if you actaully purchased/financed it, and then escaped having to "pay" for its depreciation, since the money saved from a lease buyout more than pays for depreciation.  

This is rare, and you must crunch the numbers that the dealer gives to you ensure you're in the black after you buy out the car.  

Now, with all that said, perhaps you should look at barely-used cars with low mileage?  Perhaps it's not as exciting, but it makes financial sense, and with today's glut of excellent used cars that are often factory-certified, you can get virtually the same buying experience as a new car, and get MORE car for your money.  

If this is something you're open to, we should enter a new dialogue about some of the rather exciting cars of recent vintages that you can afford when bought a couple years old, with 20-30K miles.  

As for the new cars you're already looking at.  There's nothing wrong with any of them.  I'm a bit confused, however, about the dimensions of your telescope.  Doesn't its tripod disconnect?  How tall does your car need to be to fit it?  And how in the he*ll do I look at galaxies with my dad's mediocre telescope?  I used to have software that plotted the night sky, and back when I was taking astronomy in undergrad, I tried for days to see nearby galaxies, only to find empty space.  Bah.