[andi*pandi]

A small snowstorm this week had someone sliding out of control into my long-beloved Subaru. Alas, this time for sure the insurance will total it.

Thus, car shopping. I've been stalking cars.com for a while anyhow to see what the prices were. Possible: 2010 premium package (heated seats/mirrors etc) or 2011 base model.

I had my eye on what I thought was a 2010 6-speed Outback for much less than market, but when I got there it turned out that the Chrysler dealer didn't know the difference between CVT and 6-speed an had mismarked it. Test drove it anyhow and really like the feel and the comfort. Just like home. Still going to look for a 6-speed to try out...

However, while I was there we saw a Hyundai Sante Fe, which we liked and had tested before. It is plenty spacious if bland. No manual option.

Then, the surprise. The salesman pointed out the Kia Sorrento, much more upscale than I recall. Leather, sat nav, backup camera, folding 3rd row (handy for hauling a scout troop) and more. Not as spacious cargo as the Sante Fe, but about the same as the Outback. I was tempted, but know nothing about Kia. Consumer reports seems to like it.

Anyone have one? Subaru loyalty is hard to break out of...

[sek929]

I know a couple people that own bum Sante Fe's, nothing but trouble from what I've seen.

In fact, if you are used to the legendary rock-solid reliability of a Subie odds are you won't be happy with a Kia either.

Get the Outback!

[imitchellg5]

Stay with Subaru. You could always try out the new 2012 Impreza hatchback if you'd like. It's pretty roomy, and should have about the same amount of passenger space as your old Subaru, though less cargo space.

The Santa Fe does have a manual in the very base model, though only with FWD.

[Paco500]

For what it's worth, my parents bought a Sorrento in the summer and have been very happy with it. I spend a week with them this past autumn and spent quite a bit of time driving it about and was, on the whole, very impressed. If I had any complaint it was that is didn't feel as "solid" as most European cars- didn't have the satisfying thunk when closing the door for example. However, Subarus have always left a bit to be desired in this department as well.

I can't speak to long term reliability as they've had it less than a year and they hardly drive, but it was a nice to drive, well equipped attractive car that I would be very happy to drive.

Kia has come a long way and is without question on the rise. Again, I've got no info on long term reliability, but they are hard to beat when you consider what you get for what you pay, and the warranty is awfully good.

Does not have the soul or cache that Subaru does- but may be a lot more piratical.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Sorrento is AWD? Didn't know that.

I've got the 2012 Impreza hatch and it's nice. AWD is the only real kicker over other cars in that category though - but if you actually come from the land of ice and snow, like I do, then you'll know how much better it is than even FWD cars; with good winter tires, it's a tank. AFAIK both passenger space and cargo space in the 2012 model is larger than the old Impreza.

Space-wise, the Outback is the clear winner though.

Like has been mentioned, the Subarus will never win interior awards. Pretty mediocre compared to the offerings coming out of South Korea or anywhere else, really.

[Paco500]

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton 

Sorrento is AWD? Didn't know that.

It has FWD and AWD versions.

[glideslope]

I would go with a used Outback. Subaru's AWD is by far the best, IMO.

2010 / 11. With the redesigned 2.5L. The CVT takes getting used to, IMO. Make sure you like it. Happy Hunting.

[nostalgiaCa$h]

New cars are a *****ing ripoff. Get a 1999 Impreza, some aftermarket hubcaps, and rock on.

[besson3c]

What will the aftermarket hub caps do?

Why not just get a Buick LeSabre or a Dodge Strata? Those are nice cars.

[sek929]

I prefer the Dodge Aries K if we're ironically suggesting vehicles.

[besson3c]

The 1999 Impreza is pretty crappy anyway.

Do you like my strong personality Rob? It's stronger than yours. Yours is weak.

[imitchellg5]

Originally Posted by nostalgiaCa$h 

New cars are a *****ing ripoff. Get a 1999 Impreza, some aftermarket hubcaps, and rock on.

As long as it's a 2.5RS and not the base 2.0L which has plentiful head gasket issues.

It isn't practical for everyone to drive a 13 year old car. No matter how well it was taken care of, that's the age where things start to simply become expensive.

[sek929]

The cost of ownership of a used car is nearly identical to the costs of buying brand new. Only the upfront money makes buying new seem more expensive, but in the end if you plan on driving the car for a long time the costs even out with constantly fixing an aging car.

Like you said, iMitchell, any aging car will need a host of replacement parts that do eventually fail no matter how well the car is treated.

[knifecarrier2]

Originally Posted by glideslope 

I would go with a used Outback. Subaru's AWD is by far the best, IMO.

Ahem.

Audi Quattro vs. Other All-Wheel Drive Systems - YouTube

I think not.

Oh and since we're on that subject this is the most epic thing I've seen in months:

Audi R18 e-tron quattro launch trailer - YouTube

[knifecarrier2]

Originally Posted by sek929 

The cost of ownership of a used car is nearly identical to the costs of buying brand new. Only the upfront money makes buying new seem more expensive, but in the end if you plan on driving the car for a long time the costs even out with constantly fixing an aging car.

Like you said, iMitchell, any aging car will need a host of replacement parts that do eventually fail no matter how well the car is treated.

No. At all. Case by case comparison, with all my cars:

97 Neon: Purchased for 7 grand with 52k on it. Drove til 130k. Sold for $3500. Cost for upkeep: ~ 2-3k in tires, oil, etc. It cost about 4500 to drive 75,000 miles.

97 neon purchased new: 13k. Resale value after 75k ~ 5k (at the time). Cost of driving 75k miles = 8,000. Almost double.


---------------------------------------------------
92 SVX. Purchased for $3600 with 125k. Sold at 200k. Ignoring "upgrades", cost of going 75k: 3k (tires, exhaust, all new suspension, springs, brakes, etc). Sold for 3k with 200k miles. Total cost to drive 75k = $3,000
92 SVX purchased new: $38,000. Resale value after 75k (back then) = $6500. Cost to drive 75k= $31,500

About 10x cheaper to drive used and replace anything bad with awesome stuff (stebro exhaust, brembo rotors, nice pads, awesome tires, aftermarket springs, struts, etc)
---------------------------------------------------

91 Civic Purchased for $800 with 205k. Put about $150 into replacing worn parts. Still have at 279k, value ~ $800. Cost to drive 72k ~ $150 (+ oil changes)

91 Civic Purchased new: $11k. Value after 72k: $7k (around about). Total cost to drive 72k miles: $5,000



Buying a brand new car is financially stupid. If you feel justified somehow, go for it. I need more people like you in order to get such great deals.

[knifecarrier2]

Originally Posted by sek929 

The cost of ownership of a used car is nearly identical to the costs of buying brand new. Only the upfront money makes buying new seem more expensive, but in the end if you plan on driving the car for a long time the costs even out with constantly fixing an aging car.

Like you said, iMitchell, any aging car will need a host of replacement parts that do eventually fail no matter how well the car is treated.

Right, which is why new cars don't make sense. Even if you do buy new, things wear out, and they generally wear out PAST the warranty period, which means the car has depreciated a crazy amount already anyway.

[andi*pandi]

Last weekend I drove a 2010 6spd outback and would have bought then, but the insurance is being really slow about giving me a value on the totalled 96.

[sek929]

Buying an 800 dollar car and putting only 150 bucks into parts is so abnormal I don't even know where to begin with your posts.

[knifecarrier2]

So you're ignoring the other two examples? I could keep going with other cars, but I can't think of ANY time it would ever be financially smart to buy a brand new vehicle.

[knifecarrier2]

Andi, is there a reason you aren't just looking at something like a 2002-2007 Legacy or Outback wagon? You'd save about 15 grand or so. Which could be used on hookers and blow.

[sek929]

If you plan on keeping a vehicle 10+ years then buying new most certainly makes sense since only people who get rid of cars with some regularity care about resale value.

I have never bought a brand new car. The money you can save on buying a used car goes right the hell out the window if it develops expensive problems, problems new cars do not have or if they do are covered under warranty.

Honestly, the smartest buy would be the last model year of a car, so like a 2011 Outback. Already depreciated, practically brand new, still has warranty.

[andi*pandi]

The 2010 redesign has more space than the older models. Warranty is also a factor. Plus I have driven an old car for a long time and would like something shiny.

If my budget (ha) were reduced I could content myself with a 2005/6 model like this:

2006 Subaru Outback 2.5i Limited, $12,780 - Cars.com

but after 100k subarus start needing timing belts, clutches, etc. Paying those bills would mean less hookers and blow.

[sek929]

Originally Posted by andi*pandi 

but after 100k subarus start needing timing belts, clutches, etc. Paying those bills would mean less hookers and blow.

All cars will need certain parts around the 100k mark, the ones that don't are an abnormality.

[Big Mac]

I'm in the market for a car myself now. Personally, I can't see paying the new car premium even though the used car market is expensive relative to where it's been in the past. Why pay a such a large premium for new when you can get a used recent model year that looks new and has a warranty for thousands less? I understand that some people have a thing about demanding new, and I guess if you crave the latest and greatest model year (especially if it's a redesign) you put up with the premium, but I don't see it as sensible.

Based on all the good things I've been hearing about Subaru on here and elsewhere (I think the commercials are particularly effective too), I'm adding it to my list of makes to check out. On my list is Ford, Hyundai, Nissan, Mazda and Subaru. I think I'm heading to my Ford dealer today to test drive the Fusion (giving it a second chance on headroom) and Edge.

[sek929]

I'm a big fan of the Ford Fusion and Mazda is probably the most "fun and spirited" car company of the Japanese market.

Honestly, with those brand choices, the top of my list would be a Subaru Legacy GT. Favorite Subie of all time would be a mid-to-late 90s Impreza 2.5 RS...a car I think Rob would actually approve of.

[andi*pandi]

Originally Posted by sek929 

All cars will need certain parts around the 100k mark, the ones that don't are an abnormality.

True, but I'm hoping to have a few trouble-free years before then, and buying a car under 100k with a 100k warranty will help that.

[knifecarrier2]

Originally Posted by sek929 

IFavorite Subie of all time would be a mid-to-late 90s Impreza 2.5 RS...a car I think Rob would actually approve of.

GC8's are awesome... but honestly I can't justify owning one for the price they command. A nice clean GC8 2.5RS will be about 5-7k... and you're getting an econobox impreza with an econobox interior, with econobox power (160hp).

For the same price, you can get a nicely sorted 1st gen Audi S4/S6 (like my car) which sports quattro, the best engine audi ever made, stock 230hp, and better build quality everywhere, with an AMAZING interior and factory recaros, heated seats front and rear, etc. (15 minutes and $300 later and you have about 300hp, easily upgradable to 400hp without internals, with internals it's basically limitless)

I really like 2.5RS's, but when you can get a 50k+ german super sedan for the same coin, it just doesn't make any sense.

[imitchellg5]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

Based on all the good things I've been hearing about Subaru on here and elsewhere (I think the commercials are particularly effective too), I'm adding it to my list of makes to check out. On my list is Ford, Hyundai, Nissan, Mazda and Subaru. I think I'm heading to my Ford dealer today to test drive the Fusion (giving it a second chance on headroom) and Edge.

FYI, the current Fusion is a great car, but the 2013 Fusion is completely redesigned and may very well be one of the best cars to be sold on this continent this year. It goes on sale in the next few months.

[imitchellg5]

Originally Posted by knifecarrier2 

I really like 2.5RS's, but when you can get a 50k+ german super sedan for the same coin, it just doesn't make any sense.

There is an issue though. When the Audi does break, it's a crapload of cash to fix. Yes, the UrS6 is probably the most reliable Audi ever built, but it's still not as bulletproof as an Impreza. I would be uncomfortable buying an UrS6 these days unless it had very good history.

[knifecarrier2]

Yeah, but you don't know the car, you're saying that because of the brand. It's reliable, everything on it was battle tested in WRC. I'd say the AAN is more bulletproof and reliable than anything Subaru made in the 90s except the SVX engine. All the EJ series boxer engines had a lot of issues with headgaskets failing.

[imitchellg5]

Originally Posted by knifecarrier2 

Yeah, but you don't know the car, you're saying that because of the brand. It's reliable, everything on it was battle tested in WRC. I'd say the AAN is more bulletproof and reliable than anything Subaru made in the 90s except the SVX engine. All the EJ series boxer engines had a lot of issues with headgaskets failing.

You know I worked for Audi right? Not a dealer. Actual Audi. New parts are becoming quite expensive, and with only 300-ish in the country, you pretty much have to have everything shipped in.

[andi*pandi]

Of the things that have failed on my subarus, the head gasket was not one of them.

[Big Mac]

Originally Posted by imitchellg5 

FYI, the current Fusion is a great car, but the 2013 Fusion is completely redesigned and may very well be one of the best cars to be sold on this continent this year. It goes on sale in the next few months.

I've heard about the 2013 model year Fusion and that it will be completely one and the same as the Mondeo, instead of being, what, a tweaked Mondeo (right?) as in previous years. I'm partial to the Fusion/Mondeo because I love my 2000 Contour Sport (Contour being the previous US brand name of the Mondeo). I've been completely satisfied by it. It's time for a newer car, though, and for my brother to get my Contour. But we were both spooked by the lack of headroom we experienced in the Fusion and even the Taurus (as discussed in my auto show thread). Perhaps the seats were elevated when we sat in them.

So you really think the new Fusion is going to be one of the best cars of the year? How much better do you think it will be versus a 2012 model? Do you think the hybrid options will be worth it? I know the new eco-boost 4 has power around the same as the outgoing V6 models, but it's disappointing to see no new V6 with even higher power.

[imitchellg5]

Well, the 2.0L EcoBoost should have more power than any of the current V6 options and have significantly better fuel economy. I guess the best way to put it is that the 2012 Fusion is competitive with cars that are on sale now, but the 2013 Fusion will likely be the gold standard for the next generation of mid-sized sedans sold in the US.

The pre-2013 Ford Fusion isn't the Mondeo, it's actually based off of a Mazda platform from which the Mazda 3, 6 and CX7 come from.

[Laminar]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

I've heard about the 2013 model year Fusion and that it will be completely one and the same as the Mondeo, instead of being, what, a tweaked Mondeo (right?) as in previous years. I'm partial to the Fusion/Mondeo because I love my 2000 Contour Sport (Contour being the previous US brand name of the Mondeo). I've been completely satisfied by it. It's time for a newer car, though, and for my brother to get my Contour. But we were both spooked by the lack of headroom we experienced in the Fusion and even the Taurus (as discussed in my auto show thread). Perhaps the seats were elevated when we sat in them.

I'm taller than you and I was as comfortable in a Fusion as I was in my Contour.

Originally Posted by imitchellg5 

Well, the 2.0L EcoBoost should have more power than any of the current V6 options and have significantly better fuel economy. I guess the best way to put it is that the 2012 Fusion is competitive with cars that are on sale now, but the 2013 Fusion will likely be the gold standard for the next generation of mid-sized sedans sold in the US.

The pre-2013 Ford Fusion isn't the Mondeo, it's actually based off of a Mazda platform from which the Mazda 3, 6 and CX7 come from.

The 2.0 Ecoboost is around 237hp/250tq. The outgoing 3.5 V6 was 263hp/249tq.

[knifecarrier2]

Originally Posted by imitchellg5 

You know I worked for Audi right? Not a dealer. Actual Audi. New parts are becoming quite expensive, and with only 300-ish in the country, you pretty much have to have everything shipped in.

They really aren't. And again, you don't know what you are talking about. There were 300 S6 wagons. There were thousands of S4/S6 sedans. There were thousands of non-S wagons. Hence, if I need a part specific to my drivetrain or any S-specific part, they are cheap because I can choose from thousands of S4/S6s, same goes for wagons specific parts. And really they aren't that bad. New audis are expensive to maintain, but a mid 90s supersedan/wagon isn't.

[jmiddel]

I'd consider either the Subaru Forrester or the Honda CRV. Both are superb, reliable and fun cars to drive. Handling is exceptional for a non BMWMercedes car, ie for something affordable, and vastly more reliable than those luxury brands.

The Forrester would be my choice because it comes with a stick.

[knifecarrier2]

Yeah..uh.. neither of them are fun to drive, as they're both kind of bloated SUVs that used to be small. And Mercedes is not known for it's handling at all, so I really don't think you know what you're talking about. At all.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by knifecarrier2 

Yeah..uh.. neither of them are fun to drive, as they're both kind of bloated SUVs that used to be small. And Mercedes is not known for it's handling at all, so I really don't think you know what you're talking about. At all.

You don't know what you're talking about. Mid 90s supersedans and wagons suck.

[ghporter]

My experience with the CRV is not consistent with knifecarrier's observation. The 4-wheel drive CRV is nimble, handles very nicely in both traffic and highway conditions, and I thought it was a lot of fun to drive.

However I must add to that the point that the CRV is NOT an off-road vehicle. If you think of it as a roomy hatchback with great traction and high ground clearance, you won't get yourself into trouble with it. We did go off the pavement with ours now and then. For example, we got stuck in completely stopped traffic on I-10 just west of the Houston area (headed east, almost to Katy) and were able to easily (and probably illegally (gasp!!)) cross the rather deep and very wet drainage between the main lanes and the access road.

No experience with the Forester, but I did drive BMWs and Mercedes professionally at one time, and what the Daimler cars lacked in microdot precision turning, they made up for in smoothness and steadiness. (Which never made up for the suckiness of the '80s vintage turbo diesels, but that's a different story.). In my experience, the way Mercedes handle has a lot to do with the size of the car (and probably target audience); the larger the car, the more "comfortable" the handling, with less crispness of response. Those old 2-seat convertibles were a lot of fun to drive! My latest expience was with a 5 year old S350...as a passenger. My friend drove like he knew how to do it, and it was fun to ride in.

[LucaDiMontezemolo]

Buy a Jeep. Buy Italian.

[imitchellg5]

Originally Posted by Laminar 

The 2.0 Ecoboost is around 237hp/250tq. The outgoing 3.5 V6 was 263hp/249tq.

Are you sure? That's really low for a direct-injected turbocharged 2.0L these days. Kia's makes 276 hp.

Originally Posted by knifecarrier2 

They really aren't. And again, you don't know what you are talking about. There were 300 S6 wagons. There were thousands of S4/S6 sedans. There were thousands of non-S wagons. Hence, if I need a part specific to my drivetrain or any S-specific part, they are cheap because I can choose from thousands of S4/S6s, same goes for wagons specific parts. And really they aren't that bad. New audis are expensive to maintain, but a mid 90s supersedan/wagon isn't.

Oh, okay. You originally specifically mentioned the wagon, but I didn't realize you had shifted your argument to make you appear to not be a complete and utter idiot.

[imitchellg5]

Originally Posted by ghporter 

My experience with the CRV is not consistent with knifecarrier's observation. The 4-wheel drive CRV is nimble, handles very nicely in both traffic and highway conditions, and I thought it was a lot of fun to drive.

It's ironic that he's calling the CR-V bloated when the top line model weighs nearly 500lbs less than his Audi.

[knifecarrier2]

Park it next to an original CRV. It's gigantic. Same goes for the forester!

[ghporter]

The current CRV is minimally wider than the original, and is slightly shorter in length. Hardly "gigantic" in comparison.

First Gen:
Wheelbase 2,620 mm (103 in) 2,625.1 mm (103.35 in) (post-facelift)
Length 4,560 mm (180 in)
Width 1,780 mm (70 in)
Height 1,678 mm (66.1 in)1996–1998 (2WD version)
1,700 mm (67 in) 1996–1998(4WD LX)

Current (4th) Gen:
Wheelbase 103.1 in (2,619 mm)
Length 178.3 in (4,529 mm)
Width 71.6 in (1,819 mm)
Height 65.1 in (1,654 mm)

[andi*pandi]

I drove a CR-V last year, maybe a 2008 model? We didn't like it. Uncomfortable seats, narrow feeling, small cargo space, and whoever designed the control panels/console had never done user testing.

[imitchellg5]

Originally Posted by knifecarrier2 

Park it next to an original CRV. It's gigantic. Same goes for the forester!

Yeah, the Forester is a whole .9" taller now than the original! And the current base model weighs 150lbs less than the original base model. Gigantic!

[knifecarrier2]

Yes because weight = size. I keep forgetting.

[ghporter]

Originally Posted by andi*pandi 

I drove a CR-V last year, maybe a 2008 model? We didn't like it. Uncomfortable seats, narrow feeling, small cargo space, and whoever designed the control panels/console had never done user testing.

It's kind of related to what you're used to. I've driven Hondas for 30 years, and everything is where I expect it in a CR-V. We almost bought a new one in '07, and we shopped and compared them thoroughly. It came down to keeping our old one (a 2000 model) and buying a sedan, not because we didn't like the new model, but because the "perfect" Civic was sitting there on the lot. The '07 and '08 are the same generation, so their interiors and controls are nearly identical. I didn't like the shifter in the console, but otherwise everything was where I expected it.

In contrast, we recently had a rental 2011 Chevy Impala, and we both hated it; none of the controls were where we were looking for them, and some were just plain stupid (push the parking brake pedal harder to release the parking break?). If you're a Subaru person, you're looking for Subaru's layout, which, while a lot better than that Impala's, is not at all the same as the Honda's. But it's a lot closer than it is to that Chevy!

[imitchellg5]

Originally Posted by knifecarrier2 

Yes because weight = size. I keep forgetting.

It does actually. Like how in medicine, there is a certain healthy weight for your body type/size.

You know, it's perfectly alright to admit you're wrong. Nobody here will think less of anyone for admitting they're wrong.