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 What's the best vehicle for my needs?
1145 messages, Last post on Sep 17, 2009 at 12:59 PM
You are in the Smart Shopper Forum. Your Hosts are kirstie_h & tidester
|
Replying to: dave8697 (Jun 20, 2009 8:43 pm) I'll give ya an example. I bought an '03 Lincoln LS V8 with 30k miles in October '05 for right about $20k. It was a decent price. Trade value was about $18k. About 18 months later, trade value was $12k. So it depreciated somewhere in the 55-60% neighborhood in the first 2 years and went on to depreciate like a rock after that. Like I said, it CAN hurt.
|
|
|
Replying to: qbrozen (Jun 22, 2009 9:10 am) If I buy it new, I fix everything that goes wrong with it. When I buy used, I find 3 or 4 expensive things wrong with it within a year and I never get them fixed.
|
|
|
Replying to: dave8697 (Jun 22, 2009 7:19 pm) trading is asking the dealer to give you $4k less than PP. First off, if you get $4k more PP than trade-in, you've found yourself an incredible sucker. Typical dealer asking price is $4k over trade. Typical selling is more like $3k over trade. Private party, best case scenario, is more like $1500-$2k over. Take out the ad fees, detail cost, repair costs, and lost tax advantage (in my state, anyway), and trading is no worse than selling PP on vehicles over $10k. |
|
| Say, I've been reading up on turbocharged cars. I like the idea of a car with the fuel economy of a 4-Cyl, but the power of a V6 or V8 - BUT, I've heard mentions of a "turbo lag". I figure it's not a big deal when accelerating from a stop. But is turbo lag going to negatively affect my ability to pass in and out of traffic quickly? I'm a lot more concerned about navigating high speed highway traffic than zooming up the fast lane, so I'm not sure if turbo is the way to go in that case. | |
|
Replying to: demigawd (Jun 24, 2009 6:39 am) |
|
|
Replying to: demigawd (Jun 24, 2009 6:39 am) However, "the economy of a 4-cyl with the power of a V6 or V8" is marketing BS, for the most part. Power costs gas, no matter how it is achieved. For example, a WRX STi gets 19mpg combined (300hp turbo 4 AWD). A 335ix gets 19mpg combined (300hp turbo 6 AWD). A G35X gets 19mpg combined (300hp NA 6 AWD). |
|
|
|
|
Replying to: qbrozen (Jun 24, 2009 9:10 am)
|
|
|
Replying to: jeffyscott (Jun 24, 2009 9:23 am) |
|
|
Replying to: qbrozen (Jun 24, 2009 9:10 am) I've committed to hunting down G35x's, but I also need to keep some of my options open. Assuming I abandoned the absolute requirement for an AWD, but instead wanted a compact turbo car (sub-7 0-60) with a good reputation for maintenance and good handling in wintery Chicago conditions, what would you recommend? I was thinking something in the mold of a 1999 Saab 9-3 turbo that a friend of mine used to have. He had it in a hatchback and I really enjoyed riding in it. It could park easily because of the size, but had a great interior and could haul-ass. I've heard that the newer Saabs have really lost their reputation for quality, which prevents me from going for a 2003+ model. The fast Jettas fit that mold too (and, according to a post here, handle well in the winter), but I've heard bad things about THEIR reliability and maintenance as well. So is there a car that fits that mold but retains high reliability and reasonable maintenance costs?
|
|
|
Replying to: demigawd (Jun 24, 2009 11:33 am) Yes. I can't suggest either Saab or VW as reliable vehicles. I would suggest Volvo, however. I don't think it will be quite as reliable as Infiniti, but I've had good luck with them. My S70 T5 was one of the best vehicles I ever owned. Was great in the snow, the high-pressure turbo made it a blast to drive, and it was supremely comfortable. However, I did have to put some money into it at around the 100k mile mark (suspension, ABS module, turbo oil seal), but I don't think that's unreasonable, especially since I drove it so hard. And, keeping on that turbo vs NA thing, I netted right around 24 mpg with the S70 during its stay with me. That was a 236hp turbo 5-cyl 2.3 liter. The 3.5liter 280hp 350Z that followed used to return 25.5mpg. The 3.2liter V6 Accord after that was 26.5mpg. So, again, turbo'ing a smaller engine does not automatically equal better mileage.
|
|
You are here:
Forums
Smart Shopper What's the best vehicle for my needs?
New? Join Now!
Forum Tools
Search Forums
Browse by Vehicle
Browse by Board
Browse by Topic
Today's Chats
