Automotive Forums

Thanks guys,

   Interesting to get someone else's input. I'm afraid I'm not a potential customer for the simple reason we live on opposite ends ot the country. Good luck in finding an owner for the car though.  Out of curosity, you suggested buying pre-owned, and typically the car is 3 years old, however, you advised against buying a car of 4 years. Without intending to be pejorative, exactly how could it be considered advantageous to buy a car if it reaches "old age" after one year?

  As far as the car payments are concerned, it is as follows: My deceased grandparents on my mother's side bequeathed a handsome sum of money to me, 10 grand that is, which I have yet to receive and it has been a couple years since they perished. They lived a modest life, in which they seldom spoiled themselves. I'm expected to make the downpayment, but the car of course will be purchased by my father, as I have no credit to speak of (been using debit card all these years), nor are credit card companies willing to comply with a young person like me, but yet they predicate their livelihood on the very same people failing to make monthly payments on time.....go figure. I will write my father a check, beyond that, however, I'm fairly sure we'll split payments.

  I live in an affluent community (one kid I went to school with received an 80,000 BMW - I forget which one - on the ocassion of his 17th birthday), but my parents are not particularly wealthy and there's a certain guilt for imposing such a burden on my parents, but they insist I geting me a vehicle. My car would make it the 4th current lease, and the monthly payments for the GTI, Maxima, and Beetle Convertible are not what you'd consider reasonable - ballpark estimates: 360, 400, 370 respectively. I was a tad submissive these past years, as I let my brother take full posession of the 2003 Passat my parents had leased upon us receiving our licenses. The lease just expired and my brother got a GTI with manual transmission, that I'm unable to drive.

  That being the case, I am desperately trying to get the payments down. The Nissan Altima Coupe was only 255 a month and I'm sure I could get the price even lower with the necessary haggling. For what it's worth, my parents never did have to pay tuition as my brother and me received free rides at a local university, as a result of my dad being the chairman of the math departments, one of the few perks of being a college professor. Therefore, no outstanding college or loan fees exist.

I didn't tell you this, but I almost bought a Mustang on Tuesday. The dealership had located the exact car I was looking for (V6 coupe, light graphite cloth seats, windveil blue, etc.), and I was given numbers that were very much within reason. My dad and I returned later on in the day only to find the 3000 downpayment had never included bank fees and taxes, and once reconfiguring the numbers the monthly payment came to 376, and they refused to take off a few bucks. Needless to say, I rejected this offer. Well, I received a call from this dealership yesterday morning saying they'd do 319 with 3.500 something down, but that may be too high given the Altima's price tag. Subsequently, another dealership called, and made reference to my college e-mail address, and brought up this special college rebate that I had no idea was entitled to.

Buying is definately a viable option, I have to discuss this with my parents. However, I'd probably opt to go with a lease and discuss the buy out scenario at the end of the lease before I purchase the car. Buying is a totally different ballgame though. If I were to decide on the Mustang (which I've test driven and didn't find the visibility reprehensible) I wouldn't even consider buying, given Ford's reliability and resale value. I'd want to make sure I'm always driving the car under  warranty, although I've heard uncharacteristically good things about the Mustang's reliability from some of its owners after perusing the internet.  Still, I'd assume Ford doesn't hold a candle to Honda/Toyota in that regard.

I once asked my mom what had prompted them to lease cars after they had always bought cars up until 1997. And the reason for this was the 1986 Audi they had owned would frequently need repairs in its later years, with costs that would greatly exceed monthly lease payments on a new car.

Without diverging from the subject here, there's probably a very good reason why you didn't see galaxies from your front lawn. A) No other celestial object is more affected by urban light pollution than galaxies, you'd see a hazy blob that is Andromeda and a few others possibly that's it (The Moon, planets, globular clusters to an extent are not as affected) B) And more importantly, the telescope you were using was probably a cheap department telescope, the kind that single-handly destroys any budding interest in astronomy rather than fostering it. With the right size telescope endowed with good optics and dark skies, however, you'd be surprised how much detail you can see, the structure, dust lanes and the like, come alive under such conditions and it could really be spellbinding to see in person. If you were ever interested in getting yourself into astronomy, or a future child, then I'd greatly advise ordering online, some of the solid telescopes offered are very much affordable. Feel free to hit me up if you're ever seeking advice in this area. Amateur astronomers have the unspoken responsibility of fostering another's interest.

As for the dimensions of my telescope, well, there are different telescope designs, and my particular design does not incorporate a tripod like that of a refractor or catadioptric, but rather it looks like a cannon. The telescope is about 68 inches, I'd say when fully assembled. Fortunately, it splits into two to make transportation more "feasible". The lower portion, which contains the mirror is about 39 inches, and I'd like to keep it upright. At 82 pounds (99 completely assembled), It is also back breaking experience moving it around. I ran a Google search - here's the telescope I have, it's actually an older model, but you can get idea of scale in relation to the funny looking guy. I'm sure you see the place in which the telescope seperates:

http://drdebug.com/bitbang/campics/myscopes/dcp00647.jpg

I usually bring tape measure to the dealership, and I had to eliminate the Outlander yesterday, as it would have been difficult loading it into the trunk, and even then it would be a very tight fit. I wonder if a small trailer would do the trick?

Thanks again!

DQ  

As of this moment I'm going with an SUV, I reached a stalemate a while back and I'm not going to know what's best for me until I actually pull the trigger. In terms of lust, really only the Mustang and Altima coupe did the trick for me in that respiect. Despite that, the 7 cars I've narrowed it down (including the two coupes) have their complimentary strengths, so it seems the car I ultimately chose will have something wonderful to offer in one respect or another..and I'll be ecstatic with my first car. Keep in mind, the 7 remaining cars have survived every other car within my price range. My astronomy is far too important to me, therefore I'd be amiss in selecting something other than SUV. I figured out a way of placing my telescope in the car, so that it would fit in basically any of the vehicles listed below, contrary to what I originally thought. The telescope may obstruct my view out the back window, however. Here are the five SUVs, feel free to include preferred trim line if you so desire. Please note I would prefer payments be below 300 dollars/month with 3000 up front (taxes, bank fees, etc included within that 3000).  Here are the SUVs:

Honda Element
Honda CR-V
Jeep Patriot
Jeep Compass (don't know much about this car or the Patriot for that matter. Seem to be good values, with uncharacteristically good fuel economy. With the Patriot I could perhaps get a decked out version for a reasonable price. Would you say Jeep's reliability is suspect? I honestly don't know)
Toyota RAV-4 (4-cylinder. It's funny how things change. This car is listed in the subject of this thread, but yet it has a marginal chance of being purchased, the least of the 5)


Ultimately, I will decide, but your 2 cents are invaluable to me. If you simply don't have an opinion, that's fine! You're not obligated to respond.

Thanks,
DQ  

DQ,

I think you misread my post.  I said get a used car that was either 2, 3, or 4 years old and NOT to get anything older than 4 years old.  It is not an arbitrary age range.  Most cars built today are designed to last 6 or 7 years before suffering a major breakdown / mechanical failure.  And our trusty foreign cars, more like 8 or 9 years.

Mileage along with time, plays a role too.  If you're looking at a 2006 car....but it has 90,000 miles on it......I would advise against buying this car, at any price, no matter what make or model.

And the reverse is true.  I would not buy a 2000 car.....even if it only has 25,000 miles on it....just because time takes on toll on all the systems/components of a car, not just the road.  Oh, and I hope you know that when people who sell their cars try to emphasize "mostly highway miles" this really doesn't mean anything.  For one thing, its almost never true.  For another, it really doesn't detract from whatever the mileage is.

And there are always exceptions.  My faithful workhorse is one: a 1993 Nissan Maxima, 149K.  I am not the original owner, but I've had it since 1999 with 65K.  The only thing, besides brakes and oil and fluid flushes, I've had to change are the CV joints and that was late 2005.  And yep, its an automatic.

And I am sure there are a few American cars made in the late 80s / early 90s that are still going strong.

Unfortunately, your parents had an exception with their foreign car, with it breaking down relatively soon after purchase.  It is unfortunate that your parents used this as a reason to lease, not purchase, every single car they have had after this incident, which was a while ago now.  Except in a very very few situations, if you lease a car and then buy it with a balloon payment at the end, you will pay much more than you would have upfront, even paying brand new sticker.

And if you don't buy the car at the end of the lease....what then?  You've just shelled out THOUSANDS of dollars for the "priviledge" of driving a car for 2 or 3 years, only to start back at ground zero with NO car and a lot less money in your bank account.

This is why leasing is great for people who have large amounts of disposal incomes (say, $50k+ a year of "fun" money).  These people can easily afford to start all over again and lose a bunch of money and not ever really "feel" it.

It sounds like you are living in a well-to-do neighborhood, where a lot of people have a lot of money to throw around on less-than-necessary things.  However, it doesn't sound like either you or your parents fall into this same category.  You have $10k to play with....but no credit....and no high-paying line of work you have mentioned.  So a lease is a very very bad idea, unless your parents are just going to step in and take care of it.

If you buy a used car, once you own it, you own it.  You can drive it until the wheels fall off.  Or you can sell it and recoup anywhere from 25% to 40% of what you paid for it depending on how long you keep it and how far you drive it.  This chunk of money can then help you buy a new or newer car down the road.  Taking a lease will NEVER lead to you being paid anything afterward.  Considering that most vehicles on your final list are Jeeps, a lease is a bad idea made worse.  

So I recommend staying away from the Jeeps.  Stick with Honda or Toyota.  And I am sad to see the RAV 4 so low on your list.  I have several friends who have this SUV (a 2005 and a '98) and they all love this vehicle (both are V4 models, one standard one auto).

I also think you should rethink wagons (yes because I am selling one ).  SUVs will end up costing you a great deal more fuel-wise, especially if gas prices continue their upward climb.  It doesn't sound like you are a big off-roading hobbyist -- not that the SUVs you are looking at are really designed for actual heavy-duty all terrain adventures.  If the only reason you are getting an SUV is to be able to fit your telescope in it....it would be very worthful to first see if a wagon could accomodate it.

As for my Mazda being far away, I would be more than willing to drive it to your door without charge.  I enjoy road trips (especially in the Mazda....not so much in my Maxima).

I am glad to hear that the Mustang is now off the table.  A base model Mustang is about THE worst lease option car in the market today just because of how upside-down you are likely to be at the end.

Alright man, good luck!

Jason  

Jmac, as usual, makes excellent points that you should listen to.  I'm assuming that your parents' bad experience with the Audi happened in 1996, not 86. Either way, and not to disrespect your parents or anything, but their reasons for leasing are heavily flawed.  In 1986, Audis were suffering from severe reliability problems, one of which caused throttle cables to snap and stick wide-open.  Several people were run-over and killed when nearby Audis accelerated unintentionally.  These incidents, along with exceptionally poor reliability, were exceptions rather than axiomatic of car reliability.  Int he 90's Audi's had improved, but still cause occasional headaches.  Either way, the likely hood of this sort of thing happening in a modern car is very low.  What's more, even if all of there cars were generally troublesome after 3 or 4 years of use, they'd still save a lot of money by purchasing a $1500 factory extended warrante (usually 7yrs/100,000miles) upon purchase.  They could keep their cars for 5-6 years, pay them off, and then have $7-12,000 worth of car to trade in for their next one.  No unexpected maintenance costs, and very likely, no additional hassle, as any decent car will last for 5-6 years without a single significant repair. In otherwords, they're throwing money away for a false "peace of mind."  

And so would you if you leased a car.  If that doesn't matter, then there's nothing wrong with leasing.  You get a brand new car for lower monthly payments, and get to trade it in for another new one in three years.  Then again, I've never quite understood why people insist that "giving up" the car they've payed $10-15,000 (in down-payment and monthly payments) for already without any equity to show for it is somehow an advantage.  

So say you buy a 2004 Honda Element with 30,000 miles on it for $17,000.  your monthly payments might be close to what you'd pay for a leased brand new one.  But your purchased '04 Element will easily last for another 4 years without anything expensive going wrong.  And if you're really worried about it, newish used cars like that are always available with a factory extended warrante that'll cover you for the same 7yrs/100K miles as a new car, and usually cost between $1000 and $1500.  Once you've paid the car off and you're in the mood for something different, the car will be worth $5000 (probably more), and you can put that into a new car, which would then make a big difference in monthly payments for THAT new car.

Anyway, back to the cars at hand:

Forget the Jeeps.  They suck.  Now, for a more intelligent explaination.  
The Compass and Patriot are the mustangs of the SUV world.
Firstly, they're certainly attractive-looking, especially the Patriot with its properly chiseled SUV-look, but underneath and inside, they wreek of corporate compromise.
Secondly, they ride on the exact same chassis a strut suspension in front and a simple twist-beam semi-independent suspension in the rear.  While certainly space efficient, any car with this sort of primitive suspension set up should be suspect.  VW made due just fine with the previous-generation Jetta and 2WD passats.  Toyota does OK with a similar design.  But the design makes proper ride and handling hard achieve, and Chrysler has thoroughly failed to make it work.  I've not driven them, but the press has roundly criticized everything riding on this chassis, including the Dodge Caliber.  They're not particularly smooth, yet don't handle well either.  A RAV4, CRV, or Element is superior in this department, especially when you really pick up the pace.  

Third: The new Corporate 1.8, 2.0, and 2.4 liter 4 Cylinder engines (all the same engine with different piston stroke to differenciate the sizes), though all-new and much-ballyhooed by Chrysler, are buzzy, rough, not particularly efficient in real-world driving, and when mated to the CVT automatic transmissions that all of these cars have, unusually slow for their admittedly decent power output.  

Fourth:  The Jeeps (and dodge Caliber) all share a common interior that features, like the mustang, a great wall of nasty hard plastic--the sort that your TV remote is made of.  When i sat in these cars at the Chicago Autoshow this year, I thought they were preproduction models because of how absolutely miserable the interior materials were.  I then saw them on the road the next day.  

Fifth: These cars are too new to epirically judge reliability.  But based on their shoddy initial quality, and Jeep/Chrysler's reputation for crapulence, I'd avoid them even if you only planned to keep them for 3 years.  

Since you're already considering perfectly good SUVs, I see no reason to consider perfectly bad ones.  

But then, you expressed a fondness for being able to really hussle your car around once in a while, and the pleasure you get from nimble, agile handling.  Make no mistake, the Element, CRV and RAV4 are about as agile and balanced as they get for SUVs in that price range.  But do make sure you put the wagons through the same cargo-space scrutiny before you give up on them.  Like jmac said, you'll gain handling prowess and sure-footedness, and you'll see either better economy, better acceleration, or both with a wagon.  

Choose the right one, like a used Mazda6, VW passat, VW Golf (with the 1.8T or 2.8L engines--not the 2.0)or Mazda3, and you'll have a truly quick, excellent handling, fun to drive car that'll also hold your telescope--maybe.  

Also, I cruised around the scion website the other day, and I really think you should give it another chance unless you're totally put off by the styling.  And either way, the car is rather striking in person, and the interior is realy cool.  Combine that with the fact that it's got good power, weighs less than any of the SUVs you're considering (better acceleration and mileage), is made by ever-reliable Toyota out of Camry and Corolla parts, and is positively enormous inside (i'm SURE it'll swallow that telescope with ease), and it seems to me like a real winner.  I've only sat in them, so I can't say for sure how it drives.  But the latest press suggests that they're surprisingly nimble, likely due to the very low center of gravity.  So as long as you're still looking, go to a dealer and see what you think.  

Thanks you guys for the feedback, as always I'm deeply appreciative!

Well, let me cross the Jeeps off my list, that was rather amusing.

I did something yesterday I should have done sooner in my investigation. I decided to do a mock telescope packing run ,and surprisingly all 3 major components fit into my dad's Maxima (albeit precluding any passengers). Nevertheless, this opens up a whole other world of possibilities. At one point yesterday, I was all gun-ho about the likelihood of me getting a wagon; a viable compromise between sport and utility. Unfortunately, however, there seems to be few intriguing options within my price range. I looked into the Subaru Impreza Wagon or Outback, it gets rather confusing, as seemingly any Subaru model provides the option of wagon. Perhaps. it is fitting that I get behind the wheel of a Subaru as the English translation for Subaru is 'Pleiades' a bright cluster of 'young' stars amid blue nebulosity, arguably the most lauded Messier object out there. The insignia for Subaru is a star formation as well, but I believe that signifies the merging of 4 smaller Japanese companies into one larger one following WWII....I'll pretend otherwise.  

Although, I can't let something like that dictate where I put the money. From what I read, the 177 hp base engine is lethargic, and dangerously erratic. It offers up an uninspiring 10.3 0-60, and I'm sure it goes without saying that the wagon would be even slower, not so 'sporty' after all. Fuel Economy is about the same as any of the aforementioned SUVs.  

A step up to the WRX 223 hp, intercooled turbo, certainly does the trick for me, but intrigue comes at a cost. Not to mention, such reasonably powerful engines have discriminating tastes in Octane as well. I do believe, however, that two things in particular should work in my favor. 1) It is late in the season, and expected rebates are given 2) More importantly, most Subaru models have undergone body changes for 2008. Ordinarily, I believe the Subaru Impreza Sports Wagon WRX starts at over 24 k, maybe an '07, stripped off all ameneties, would be within my reach. A Subaru salesman that I like confirmed this upon me calling.

 From what I gather....that is it. The WRX is all that has struck my fancy from the wagon side of things (within my price range once again), and I'm expecting to eventually settle on one of the venerable SUV offerings  when it's all said and done (RAV-4, CR-V, Element). It's wishful thinking to believe I'd get offered this wagon at a tempting price.

 I browsed cars.com, and the Passat Wagons are rather expensive given the mileage.

 I re-eliminated the Mazda3 from my list. I went back to Mazda with my measuring tape, and the hatchback option provides enough cargo so that my scope would fit snugly. However, the jury is still out on whether or not I could get another person in there, perhaps a girl for a romantic excursion w/ my telescope, which would be the whole point in my buying something other than a coupe, as I now know I have the option of toting around my telescope with the Maxima by my lonesome. Another indictment against the Mazda3 is that the doors seem rather flimsy, and I do recall the car receiving medicore side crash test ratings. That being said, I find some aspects of the car, specifically the interior, to be consistent with that of a car costing 5,000-10,000 more.

The Mazda6 seemed to be a more substantial car, but I'm not very forgiving of a bad turning radius.  This is, of course, the achilles heel of my father's beloved Maxima.

I wll have to further discuss buying the car with my father. Would it be asinine to arrange a finance plan for 5 or 6 years, so that the monthly payments would not be so outrangeous? I shall continue to looking into used cars as well. Do you have any other wagon considerations from somebody other than Subaru, VW, or Mazda?  I know I forgot something.

Thanks again!

DQ  

I'm really frustrated with Subaru.  They make outstanding cars, especially the Legacy, and rightfully pride themselves on unique engineering and innovation.  Then they introduce a brand new model, the 2005 Legacy, and saddle its 2.5L base engine with a lousy 4-speed automatic.  With 170HP (now 177), this wouldn't be a problem with an accord or Camry.  But the standadrd AWD system on the Subaru, as on any AWD car, adds weight and increases driveline friction, making an otherwise-adequate 177 HP seem weak, especially only 4 widely-spaced gears. Want more power? Subaru's excellent 2.5L turbo or 3.0L flat 6 will cost you over $30K because the engines are packaged with tons of luxury items that, just maybe, people cross-shopping $25K Accord LX V6s and Camry LE V6s aren't interested in.

With that said, I'd be surprised if a Legacy is actaully as slow as 10.3 seconds 0-60, and I'm sure an Impreza will get the job done in the 8s. Also, I dont' know what you mean when you say that the Subaru engine is "dangerously erratic" Either way, it's just not fast enough for people who like a bit of punch. Compare, for example, my mom's 2002 Passat 1.8T.  7.6 seconds 0-60 with the 5 speed automatic.  That's way faster than a 170 HP 3300lb car has any right to be, and it all comes down to big turbo torque and closely spaced gearing.  
The solution?  Learn how to drive a stick.  You'll find driving more fun, you'll become a better driver (I promise), your girlfriend's boobs will get bigger, and you'll make more money.  Oh, and that "lame" 177HP engine will suddenly feel more than adequate, at easily as good as or better than any of the SUVs you're looking at.

I don't advise getting a WRX, and it has nothing to do with the quality or capability of the car itself.  But the reality is that it's a very fast car whose speed comes at a price.  Premium fuel, synthetic oil changes, and lousy gas mileage eliminate the economic "advantage" of having a smallish wagon instead of an SUV.  You get big power and great handling, but you pay for it big time, and heck, you don't even get a very good interior.  You could wait a couple weeks for the deliciously excellent-looking all-new Subaru Impreza line, however.  

I dont' know what the turning radius of the Mazda6 is.  I drove my friend's extensively (a very nice silver V6 with a stick), and never noticed any unusual problems parking it.  But the fact is that anytime you mount a V6 AND a transmission transversly inside a small engine bay, you limit the angle to which the front wheels can turn.  Drive a Mercedes S-class with a big 5.5Liter V8 mounted longitudinaly with no transmission to get in the way, and you'll be shocked at how good the turning radius is for its size.

So now, I'm sitting here wracking my brain trying to think of a wagon not make by Subrau, VW, or Mazda.  And I can't.  Anything American is generally worthless, and they dont' even offer wagons in this price/size range.  Mitsubishi's got nothing, and the same goes for Honda, Nissan, and Toyota.  

Audi has the A3, which was available as early as 2006.  There may be a couple of those used floating around somewhere, and if you can find one, they're really good.  Actaully, they're mechanically identical to a VW GTI, and have the usually superlative Audi interior.  A 2003-2004 Audi A4 in base trim (which is still substantial) may be within your price range, and is mechanically identical to a VW Passat, but is shorter, and therefor smaller on the inside.  

So I guess that leaves you with Suby, VW, and Mazda as far as wagons go.  So here's a breakdown of what we haven't covered so far.  

Look at the new VW rabbit.  IT's available for around 17K and is excellent. It may look just like your brother's GTI, but so what.  

Used VWs give you more options.  The Golf is basically the previous version of the current Rabbit, and is rather nice.  The Jetta was also offered as a wagon, and is somewhere between a Golf and a Passat wagon.  

Of note for all used VW Golfs and Jettas:  The base engine offered on these cars was a 2.0L 4Cyl that sucked.  It was low on HP, low on Torque, sounded like a tractor, and wasn't any more efficient than the more powerful engines offered by various Japanese makers.  The 1.8T was offered on all of them, and is the same as the 1.8T in the Passat plus 10HP.  I've waxed on about this engine before--I love it, but it requires premium fuel and synthetic oil.  The highest engine option was the 2.8L VR6 which from 2003 was rated at 201HP, and is a very sweet engine indeed.  It delivers optimal performance with premium fuel, but can also run on 89 octane just fine.  But it's torquey and sounds great.  it also guzzles fuel, and don't expect better than 23 MPG combined city and Highway mileage.  Also, this generation of jetta/golf/jettawagon suffers from electrical problems.  you won't likely be stranded by the car, but be sure to get a full coverage warrante with it to ensure that failed window lifts and dashboard lights are covered.  

Mazda also offers a car that you may or may not be interested in. The Mazda5 is somewhere between a minivan and a wagon.  Many people shudder with disgust at the merem ention of "minivan," but the fact is that the Mazda5 is not particularly minivan-like except for its sliding rear doors.  It's basically a tall wagon, and is based on the Mazda3, which is both good and bad.  It's good because the Mazda3's suspension endows it with excellent handling that would embarrass a Mustang, for example.  it's bad because at over 3000lb, the otherwise adequate 2.3L Mazda3 engine is overworked.  A stick makes it perfectly tolerable, and just as quick as the SUVs your'e looking at.  But the lame 4 speed automatic makes it doggedly slow.  The interior, however, is really cool.  it's stylish and well made from the driver's point of view, and it's 3 rows of seats are VERY handily engineered to provide either luxurious room for 4, adequate room for 6, or enormous cargo room for your stuff.  Before you write it off, check it out at the dealer.  

which brings me right back to the Scion xB.  Have you looked at it yet?  

One more thing.  Do you mean to lease a new car for 5 years, or buy a used car and finance it for 5 years?  

Leasing a car for a 5 year term is utterly the worst possible scenario you can get yourself into.  You'll end up paying the full MSRP of the car, or even more, over 5 years, and then have to give it back and have nothing to trade in towards a new car.  

Buying a financing a new or used car for 5 years is entirely normal and a more sound financial decision than leasing for any term.  you MAY end up "upside down" on the loan in the 5th year, meaning you'll owe more than the car's worth, but that's unlikely, and isn't a big deal since once you've paid the car off, you own it and can do with it as you please--either keep it or put it's $5-7K value towards another car.  6 year loans are a bit risky.  you could end up so upside-down in the loan that if you NEEDED to traid it in, you'd get nothing back from it.  4-5 years is best.

But I don't know how you intend to use your $10,000 inheritance.  If you plan on having a decent job in the next year or two, you could buy a brand new $20,000 car, put $5000 down, and finance $15K.  That'll put you right around $280-300/month depending on your APR, for a 5 year loan, or $320-370/month for a 4 year loan.  Those are ballpark figures based on various monthly payments of myself and friends who have cars of similar cost.  

Thanks, that was quicker than normal!


Yeah, I meant 5 year finance.

Don't take this the wrong way, but the second generation Scion xB is even uglier than the first, which I didn't think was possible. I don't know why you'd take it personally, however, as you did not design the car (at least I don't think you did).

I guess I'll just go with the RAV4, Element, or CR-V. I actually have a predilection towards the RAV-4 right now, but I want to give Honda the business (as I truly like the salesman I have worked with). My nearest Toyota dealership has the reputation of being ruthless scum sucking *** but It'd make haggling with them all the more easier. One would be more inclined to shake hands on a price early with a nice, honest salesman, and not have the heard to subject him to that kind of stuff. I could probably get a really good price on the front wheel drive RAV-4, and I believe I have them down to 270 at the moment. I may just take the 3-year lease road and discuss the buyout option at the end of the contract, as I intend to keep whichever Japanese car I decide on.

It certainly would be nice to learn stick, but I highly doubt my brother would let me do so w/ his new GTI. Perhaps, I'd be more apt to get an accident than reel in a girl with big boobies though (lol). Hill situations would scare me. My brother's GTI actually rolled into our busy street, as our driveway is on an incline. Apparently he didn't have the emergency brake all the way up, but fortunately nothing happened. Anyway, back to boobies, is it your impression that most girls find the Element repulsive, not that I value their opinion of the Element that highly, but since things are so tight right now, which of the three vehicles would the you surmise most appealing to the opposite sex (or benign, or better yet, least suspetible to derision)?

I guess the Forrester is an option too. I had gone to see that car nearly 3 weeks ago I believe, but maybe it's worth a second look.

Thanks!
DQ  

No, i'm not offended by your opinion of the xB.  It's a weird a*ss lookin car, but I just find it sorta...funky enough to be cool.  And I figured that since you're attracted to the almost-equally weird-looking ELement, you might like the xB.  

I can't speak for the opposite sex and their attraction to any of those SUV's in particular, but that's mostly because any girl that would be attracted to me because of the car I drive is a girl I'd rather not be involved with.  

But, man or woman, good design is good design, and the unfortunate fact is that people make judgments about you based on the "style" of car you drive, even if those judgments are corrected or negated within a few minutes of actual conversation.  If you're interested in driving something that speaks to your OWN sense of aesthetic and utilitarian values, then carefully review the functionality and style of the three SUVs you've chosen.  

I have my own views, and here they are:

The RAV4, to me, is an amorphous blob.  I find it to be utterly forgettable, and despite the fact that I see them every day on the road, I can't recall a clear picture in my head the exact curves and shapes that define the body.  That, to me, is a turnoff, and whether or not other people feel the same way, I would simply prefer to approach my car in a parking lot, and see something I like.  The other day, I pulled up into the parkinglot of Autozone to buy some Mobile 1 and an oil filter, and found my self stepping out of my car next to a particularly loaded RAV4.  It was in a nice silver paint, with V6 decals, smoked windows, and great big 17 or 18 inch alloy wheels.  It looked nice, but I remember thinking that it only looked nice because of the wheels and other details.  

The CR-V is not exactly sexy, but I find it a much more satisfying design. The raised hood line, the chiseled headlights, funky grill, the character line that runs from front to back along its waste, and the big, rounded-off C-pillar are all design elements that distinguish its look as a CRV, and not everyone else's SUV.  The fact that CRVs are everywhere, yet they still look fresh and unique to me, says something about its design.  

The element is in it's own category.  It's chunky, square, and just freakin weird.  But it's cool, becuase the very design elements that make it weird are the ones that make it more functional.  It's iconoclastic in the way the old VW Eurovan was, and it suggests of its driver that he or she is happier driving something that WORKS rather than something that compromises conventional style for functionality.  The fact that it's mechanically identical to the CRV means that the two are equally capable cars.

Learning how to drive a stick seems like a daunting task.  But get over it.    Honestly, it's the only way to drive unless you're always stuck in traffic.  A manual tansmission will make these SUVs feel almost sporty, and you'll develope a finer understanding of how your car works.  You'll be able to drive faster, more precisely, and it'll be more fun.  

My two best friends coudln't drive stick before they bought their first cars.  I taught them a bit on my car, but they ultimately learned on cars that they coudln't even drive home from the dealer, and these guys are two of the most uncoordinated people you'd ever know.  you'll pick it up in a week, at most, and you'll be glad you did.  Or you could just work on your brother some more, or someone else you know who has a stick.  All it takes is getting to know the basics, and it's just practice after that.  

Thanks again,


          Well, my brother denied me learning stick on his car and recommended I get private lessons. It doesn't seem to make a difference, however, since I discovered the CR-V and RAV-4 do not come manual, only the Element. I'm basically leaning towards a black CR-V at the moment, it makes sense that I would wind up with that car, since it was the first car research had prompted me to see and test drive. I may have preferred the way the RAV-4 drove better, although my recollection is fuzzy. Unlike like you, I'm a fan of  "creep" I can't see how accelerating out of parking spot and driveway would be beneficial to conserving fuel.

      One quick question. I've looked into Real-time 4WD, and apparently it is not intented for off-roading, which I would presume indicates it is not any better in the snow. Rather, it only seems to matter when a car loses control, in say the rain, and thus the rear axle goes to work to restore traction. I'm assuming I'd be fine with a 2WD version, it would save a lot of money, and it seems to be essentially what I'd have most of the time if I went with Real-time 4WD anyway. I'm expecting 2WD to take weight off the car, and therefore make it somewhat more  fuel efficient and slightly faster. Am I right?

Thanks,
 DQ  

Less creep has the potential to save fuel because little nor no energy is wasted "trying" to make the car move forward while the driver holds the brakes to keep the car still.  The more creep is engineered into the torque converter, the more fuel must be delivered to the engine to keep it idling against the strain of the torque converter's greater creep setting.  To visualize this better, simply exaggerate the difference between the two.  A car with zero creep will allow the engine to use only enough fuel to keep its own parts moving.  A car with loads of creep will be working hard just to keep the engine running as it fights against a torque converter that desperately wants to make the car move forward.  It's like stepping on the gas AND the brake at the same time.  

Luckily, the difference between a little creep and a little more creep will not effect your MPG in any noticeable way, so it's ultimately a non issue best left to more scrutinizing engineers.  

Real-time 4WD is most definately a benefit in slippery and snowy driving.  Comparing off-roading to snow driving isn't quite right.  A serious off-roader needs full-time 4WD to ensure that no wheel ever loses traction, as just a bit of wheelspin, or a slight delay in the 4WD system's transfer of power can make it difficult to crawl precisely over slippery rocks and up very steep grades.  

As you probably know, Realtime 4WD operates in FWD mode when traction is normal.  At the first sign of front-wheel slippage, the system automatically engages a set of clutches which send power to the rear wheels, making the system a part-time "on demand" 4WD system.  In real-world driving situations, no driver will notice the brief (probably less than a second) delay from the first sign of slippage to 4WD engagement.  As a result, the car is 4WD when it needs to be, such as accelerating from a snowy intersection or charging through a snowed-in driveway, and FWD at all other times.  I've driven my friends first-generation CR-V quite a bit in the rain and snow, and only when I"m really paying attention, or foolling around in an empty parkinglot, can I sense the system going about its business.  IN normal driving, even rather brisk or demanding driving, it's transparent.  

It's day that, given the dynamics of the CR-V, based on the Honda Civic as it is, that engaging power to the rear wheels will NOT "restore" traction in the event that you loose control.  Remember, 4WD helps you accelerate and nothing more, except maybe help you power around corners without loosing traction at one end.  Otherwise, however, any "loss of control" that would present a danger to you would probably be a loss of control that 4WD couldn't fix.  

That's where the CR-V's standard Vehicle Stability Control (or whatever HOnda's proprietary acronym is for the system). VSC uses the ABS sensors along with a sophisticated set of computers, accelerometers, and wheel-position sensors to detect when the car has lost control--for example, if you've begun to slide and you're about to spin-out.  The ABS system then kicks in and delivers braking power to invidual wheels in order to affect a sort of passive-steering that'll correct your loss of control.  Say you're taking a left hand corner too fast, the rear end begins to slide, and you counter the slide by turning the steering wheel full-right.  The system recognizes a sudden uncommanded change in direction, and your attempt to correct with opposite steering.  It will then, perhaps, apply sharp pulses of heavy braking to the right front wheel, thus proportionally slowing that side, and stopping the slide.  The systems on the growing number of cars that feature it are incredibly good at saving your butt from total loss of control.  

Do you need 4WD?  probably not.  With FWD and traction control, you can get buy just as millions of othe Americans who live in snowy climates. You'll save money on the car, and you'll get marginally better gas mileage and acceleration as the car doesn't need to haul around a few hundred pounds of clutchpacks and drive shafts.  Then again, Every single winter, I curse myself for not driving a 4WD car, and tell myself every time that the next car I get MUST have 4WD.  And then the summer comes, and I forget all about it.  

Thanks, how did you become so knowledgable? You always provide me with well-articulated responses on a moment's notice.

I'm actually heavily considering the Mitsubishi Outlander. Don't hate me for this, but if you were me which car would you choose, keep in mind the models listed are comparatively priced:

Mitsubishi Outlander (not sure which trim line, let's say tentatively one of the 2WD offerings)
Honda CR-V (2WD LX)
Honda Element (4WD EX)
Toyota RAV-4 (2WD Base)
Subaru Impreza Sport Wagon 2.5i

I realize if I put the CX-7 on the list, you'd suggest that, but the fuel costs would be a financial strain.

On another note, my telescope fits completely in my dad's Maxima, AND permits a passenger whose leg room is not the least bit compromised. This opens up the possibility of a coupe   . As I can use my dad's Maxima for romantic excursions w/ a girl & the telescope, although the car does smell like BO.

Buying a car can be fun, but it's just as much stressful. I reckon the most economical thing to do would be to just buy a bike.

-DQ  

Well, I went to test drive and possibly buy the Outlander just now, but the dealership was already closed at 6:45. The Outlander seems to have everything I'm looking for in a car: Reliability, safety, power, and a dose of style for an affordable price, but is it risky doing business with a company that might go under, or at the very least opt to only sell their cars abroad, in the not so distant future? Who would honor the generous 10-year powertrain warranty, if something happened? Or where would I go for service, if my local dealerships closed down? Nevertheless, thank you for suggesting this car, I probably would have missed it otherwise.  

"Thanks, how did you become so knowledgable? You always provide me with well-articulated responses on a moment's notice."

Thanks for the confidence in my knowledge.  For all anyone knows I could be full of crap! Actaully, I've been obsessed with how cars work since I could speak.  For 25 years or so, I've devoted a few years at a time obsessing over various automotive systems.  Some years it's suspension systmes, others engines, etc etc.  Now, at 27, it's just about keeping abreast with new developments and refining my understanding by trying to tackle more difficult engineering principles behind all those systems.  I also love to drive--It's been 11 years since I got my license, and I STILL offer to run errands for people if I can drive someone else's car to see what it's like.  As an english Master's student, I have no difficulting writing large volumes of rambling nonsense in a single sitting.  

If I were you....ok wait, I'm not you, and I would probably never drive an SUV.  I value tire-squeeling handling precision, good Power-weight ratio, and a good manual transmission too much to go for an SUV.  So if I NEEDED the cargo dimensions of an SUV, and so I had to get one, I'd get the Outlander.  The 2008 Impreza looks pretty sweet to me, so If I were gonna go with a wagon, the Suby would be right up there with a Mazda3, VW Rabbit or GTI, etc.  But the Outlander's cargo area is much bigger and much more square than the Impreza.  I'd Assume that if you're set on easy transport of your telescope with minimal compromise for other passengers, an SUV is probably best.  Of those SUVs, the Outlander seems, to my tastes, a more "satisfying" car, though not necessarily "better" than the others.  Some things that stand out to me as impressive:  The 220HP V6, nicely splits the difference between the 160HP Inline 4s offered as standard in the other SUVs, and the Toyota's monster 3.5L V6.  The Outlander's engine is also mated, as standard to a 6-speed automatic, which if I had to have an automatic, would be a bonus. 6 ratios means close ratio spacing, which means that, if intelligently programmed, the transmission will never let the engine fall off its power curve under heavy acceleration. It also comes standard with ABS, Traction control, Stability control (the VSC described in a previous thread), and active whiplash protection, which senses a severe rear-end collision, and pops the headrests up and forward to prevent your head from slinging rearwards.  I wouldn't be surprised if some of the other SUVs offer some of these features as well (i'm to lazy to cross-check), but I know the Hondas have 5 speed autos, and the Toyota has a 4 speed.  I also think the Outlander is a really nice-lookin car.  

As for mitsubishi's viability as a company: I don't blame you for being skeptical, but I wouldn't worry. Mitsubishi has always been a bit of an underdog in this country, but they've always produced cars with unusually excellent handling.  By the beginning of the 21st century, however, the automotive heavyweights were all producing superlative cars that pretty much covered all the bases, leaving fewer and fewer reasons to buy a Mitsu.  Honda Accords were capable handlers with powerful optional engines and could be optioned with near-luxury-car interiors while the Mitsu Gallant had a dated interior, dowdy styling, and no room for high-tech interior features.    Mitsu failed to capture the compact car market, which was on the cusp of reinventing itself, with the curiously ugly Lancer.  It was a fine handler and very reliable, but Mitsu marketers decided that American youths wanted an upright chrome grill and 120 wheezing horsepower.  They even named the top-line version the "O-Z" edition after the car's wheels (made by famed wheel manufacturer O-Z), and then limited wheel-size to a lousy 15 inches!  Anyway, I think it was 2002 or so when the all-new Gallant came out, and the then-near-bankrupt Mitsu could only manage a boring, oversized sedan with none of the usual handling verve, and a juvenile interior.  It's bread-and-butter sedans were poorly concieved, well engineered, and then poorly executed.  The Endeavor followed much the same path, with decent (though derivative) styling, a decent chassis (based on the gallant), a silly interior, and really nothing else to speak of to set it apart from, or on par with, the Hondas, Toyotas, Nissans, VWs, even Fords.  For the last 10 years, everyone has been buying compact and midsize sedans, and compact and midsize SUVs.  Mitsu has offered cars worth looking at, but nothing that anyone aspired to own.  

I'm no business analyst, but I suspect that Mitsu's fortunes are about to turn.  I donno where they got the money, but they've evidently payed what they needed to in order to secure solid designs for their latest cars. Mitsu Finaly made the famous EVO available in this market, given them brand recognition. The outlander is the first breath of fresh air for regular-folk, and I think it upstages the usual suspects in style and equipment--no cost cutting is apparent in the techonology and engineering department.  I see them more and more on the road, and I think it's beginning to energize the company's appeal.  As circumstantial proof, Mitsu just released their all-new Lancer, which is a giant step up from the old one, and offers good power, unique styling, a properly "youthful" level of equipment (big stereos and such), and the usual handling excellence.  I haven't heard any rumors, but I suspect a new Gallant is just around the corner.  Anyway, Nobody's gonna let Mitsu go out of business, and in fact, I'd be MUCH more worried about Chrysler and Ford (and GM for that matter) than Mitsu.  

Another thing, you may or may not hear comments about Mitsubishi not honoring their warranties, or being difficult to deal with.  I have no first hand experience dealing with their warranty stuff, but I strongly suspect that this is simply blacklash from an uproar that surfanced on enthusiast-forums a while back regarding the EVO.  That car is a hard-core performance machine and weekend track-racer.  People were upset that, after racing the car over the weekend, their dealer would not honor warranty work for parts that had failed prematurely due to extreme use.  Unsubstantiated rumors surfaced about Dealers checking SCCA websites to see who was entering  EVOs in races, and then tagging their warranties as void.  None of this has anything to do with your outlander.  If you maintain it properly, and keep basic records of your maintenance work, you'll have no problem.  

Now, if you want a coupe.  Well then that's a whole new ballgame  

Thanks!

The 4+ week quest for a car is over, I pulled the trigger on a Mitsubishi Outlander LS FWD tonight. It's interesting how one dealership could sell you the car for remarkably less than another. Although, I do hope my nearest dealership does not go out of business, as I need them for service. They are in dire straits, thus that somewhat warrants them attempting to rip me off and I do feel guilty for not giving them the business. The GM seemed distressed, after I had spoken with him regarding taking 10 dollars off the monthy lease, which he refused.

Anyway, I have yet to pick my color. I wanted Labrador Black Pearl, but I think I gained more leverage by accepting a specific car in their lot. The check was given, but I must call tomorrow confirming which color, either Graphite Gray Pearl or Deep Blue Metallic.

http://www.mitsubishicars.com/MMNA/jsp/outlander/07/views.do?loc=en-us

I'm leaning towards the Deep Blue. Ordinarily, it would be a no-brainer, but I'm not particularly fond of beige cloth. I find it less appealing and more suspestible to permanent stains. The other color option offers the graphite cloth.

Once again, I can't thank you enough for all your help. I will keep you posted with how things turns out. I pick the car up on Friday most likely.

-DQ