Edmunds.com | Inside Line | Auto Observer Your Account | Help | Directory
You are here:
![[F]](http://a332.g.akamai.net/f/332/936/12h/www.edmunds.com/media/townhall/webxicons/site.gif){kind=small}
Forums
Smart Shopper Used Vehicles Best Values
948 messages, Last post on Aug 11, 2009 at 11:51 AM
You are in the Smart Shopper Forum. Your Hosts are kirstie_h & tidester
|
|
|---|---|
|
Replying to: british_rover (Jan 09, 2007 12:58 pm)
|
|
|
|
|
Replying to: phinneas519 (Jan 09, 2007 1:34 pm) Try the Real World Tradein Forum Volvomax probably has a better idea what they potentialy have into that car. |
|
|
|
|
Replying to: meateater (Jan 09, 2007 1:13 pm) There's no way thats a rental with 77k. Rental car companies dump their cars with less than 20k. They don't want to deal with an out of warranty car and they know the next buyer will want some warranty with their purchase. That might have been a fleet car, but most likely, it was sold to some traveling salesman or something. The outside rep for Cannondale used to go through a VW every year driving to all the bike shops.
|
|
|
|
|
Replying to: lilengineerboy (Jan 09, 2007 2:14 pm) http://www.autotrader.com/fyc/vdp.jsp?car_id=212411646 But that is not a rental either because it has too many miles as well. I can't find my unlimited Carfax password right now but I am pretty sure it is not a rental. And even if it is what is wrong with rentals? In my experience they get serviced better then private owner cars. Also you need to see when it was sold to figure out how many miles are too many miles. That could have been sold mid 2005 as a 2006 MY car so it would really only have about 15,000 miles a year. |
|
|
Replying to: zodiac2004 (Jan 09, 2007 7:22 am) HUD was, I belive, an option (maybe standard on the Ultra). I personally liked it on an SSEI Bonneville I once had. You can turn it off when desired. If it fails, there's no requirement that it be repaired. Unless you want a floaty ride, find one with the Grand Touring suspension option. I believe they are identifiable by a plaque on the dash to the left of the steering wheel. |
|
|
Replying to: alltogetherook (Jan 09, 2007 11:00 am)
|
|
|
Replying to: dtownfb (Jan 10, 2007 11:03 am) I kept our son rear-facing until he was 2.5. It didn't prevent us from having conversations (even now that he's front-facing, I'm looking at the road most of the time), nor did it prevent me from pointing out trains, spectacular Christmas lights, cows, trucks, or anything else interesting/out of the ordinary.
|
|
|
Replying to: smittynyc (Jan 10, 2007 11:56 am) I'm sure your son was able to appreciate Dad pointing out a train (can't see where you are pointing). He was probably sitting there looking up at the ceiling trying to see the train. It probably took him to age 5 to realize a train is not a white puffy ball in the sky.  Seriously, either way the kids are safe and that is the important part. I know my kids appreciated being able to see where we were driving. Plus it was tons easier to load them into the car.
|
|
|
Replying to: dtownfb (Jan 10, 2007 12:37 pm) It is the most important part, and kids are certainly much safer in a front-facing seat than none at all. However, kids are safest sitting rearward as opposed to not, assuming they are in a properly sized and secured seat. Look at how few toddlers/infants die in car crashes in Europe, where children sit rearward until 5 or 6. Communicating with a rearward facing toddler really isn't that complicated -- "Wow, pretty waterfall on Daddy's side!", "Cool, check out that Excursion stretch limo on your left," etc. |
|
|
I am a Child Passenger Safety Technician, and SmittyNYC is absolutely correct - children should remain rear-facing as long as the carseat they are sitting in will allow - most convertible seats rear-face now to 33-35 pounds. The AAP has been recommending this since i believe 2002. The old mantra of 1 year/20 pounds is NOT the current recommended best practice. The differences are that a forward facing child, in a crash, will likely suffer neck/abdominal/chest injuries, same as an adult, as their bodies absorb the impact of a crash. Whereas with a rear-facing child, the CARSEAT absorbs the impact. We use a phrase, it is better to receive a broken leg in a crash sitting rear-facing, than a broken NECK in a crash sitting forward-facing. If you would like to view crash test footage that shows a forward-facing child and a rear-facing child in the same test, please view the following link: http://www.cpsafety.com/articles/stayrearfacing.aspx Scroll to the bottom and you will see a link to the crash test footage. Also, the most important thing is the safety of the child, not being able to show him/her objects you're passing. My child was rear-facing until 3 years old, and had no problems seeing anything, or communicating with us. Please keep your children rear-facing until the child has surpassed the rear-facing weight limit of the seat. Every "graduation" of seats is a DEMOTION in safety - ie - forward-facing is LESS safe than rear-facing, and being in a booster is LESS safe than being harnessed. There are also new seats available that will keep your child harnessed forward-facing beyond the standard 40 pounds (if you have a 3-in-1 seat that says it is good to 80 pounds, that only means with the seatbelt! You have to take out the harness at 40 pounds and use it as a booster seat only!) These new seats are the Cosco Apex, Sunshine Kids Radian, and the Britax Regent, Marathon, Decathlon and Boulevard. I posted this information for anyone who may be reading this thread, it is not intended for one person only. Thank you for reading, and for keeping your kids safe. Jodie CPST and mom to 2 boys (and is looking for a new-to-us car to haul everyone around in!)
|
|
You are here:
Forums
Smart Shopper Used Vehicles Best Values
