|
silence_kit posted:Just looking at Craigslist in my area, all Honda/Toyota compact cars are being listed at well above the KBB price. I know one guy who listed a 15-20 year old Civic at $1-2k above KBB price, and he sold the car within 15 minutes of posting it to Craigslist. I thought KBB was supposed to track sales prices and adjust so that KBB price=market price, but maybe not. KBB is largely garbage since what really matters in terms of what a car is worth is what someone will actually pay you for it. If KBB is $2k lower than every similar car on Craigslist, and the car is something common that sells regularly, then go off of what you see other people asking.
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2015 22:26
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 10, 2024 23:11 |
|
|
Throatwarbler posted:The key to newer Volvos is to avoid the AWD ones, because the AWD system is unreliable junk. The rest of the car isn't that bad, probably on par with Ford/GM/Hyundai. I realize this may have been a throw-away comment, but I am curious if the rest of the knowledgeable posters in this thread share this sentiment. I'm interested in Volvos primarily because of their safety, but I hadn't realized that they weren't above-average on quality and reliability. Are Volvos really not as reliable anymore? And while we're on the subject, I'm curious what you guys think about their supposed emphasis on safety. I've done some reading into this subject out of my own curiosity, though I'm probably 2 years away from needing to make a purchase decision. Looking at the XC90 IIHS safety page would certainly seem to sell the Volvo safety story. I have read articles that say that Volvo tests their cars more extensively than other manufacturers, and they also perform more tests internally that are not performed by the IIHS. While clearly this is Volvo PR spin, looking at other manufacturers safety tests, it would appear that other manufacturers seem to bomb "new" tests in the first couple years, then improve their designs as time goes on. One example of this is the Ford Explorer, which is now rated highly in most categories, but clearly does poorly when new tests are introduced. The XC90, on the other hand, has been acing the very challenging "small overlap" test since 2003, far before that test was commonplace (I don't think I saw a single other car doing that test back then, and even today many cars do not perform that test. Lookin' at you Silverado/Sierra) Objectively (and in context with cars from just a few years ago) a 2016 Ford Explorer is extremely safe and has nearly the same IIHS safety rating as the XC90, but to me the biggest question mark is: how will these cars perform when new tests are introduced? When I say new tests, I mean tests for types of crashes that have a high fatality rate and are not currently tested by the IIHS (for example, a dynamic rollover test, as shown in the Jalopnik article linked above, as opposed to the static "crush" test currently performed by the IIHS). I suspect the Volvo might do well in those tests because they already test those types of crashes, but who knows about the Ford. In 2008 you might have thought the Explorer and XC90 were comparable safety-wise since there were only 3 tests commonly used by the IIHS, but now looking back, the 2008 Explorer was clearly less safe because we now have more tests (that reflect more types of accidents). I wonder what will tests in 2020 reveal about 2016 cars? Volvo's PR angle is clearly trying to show that that they go the extra mile to make the car safer (including acing the IIHS tests and also hitting their own testing benchmarks). On the one hand, they clearly market this angle to consumers like myself who value safety. On the other hand, my armchair safety expert analysis of the IIHS tests seems to support what they're saying. Perhaps other car manufacturers "prepare for the test" rather than making their cars safer in general? Maybe it's too expensive for a volume auto maker to throw a bunch of cars in ditches like Volvo claims it does? What do you guys think? Am I drinking the cool-aid a little too much or is the Volvo safety myth real? Maybe a little bit of both?
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2015 00:01
|
|
|
Volvos were a lot safer than most for many years, but the competition has caught up. Based on IIHS results there's a good argument that subaru is the safest car maker these days and has been for almost a decade.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2015 00:15
|
|
|
chupacabraTERROR posted:What do you guys think? Am I drinking the cool-aid a little too much or is the Volvo safety myth real? Maybe a little bit of both? Basically all new cars these days are very, very safe, especially anything getting mostly 5 stars on crash tests. Volvo made a name for itself on safety in the 1980s, but at this point they aren't going to be any significantly safer than any other 5-star vehicle. New cars these days are so safe that, in my opinion, it's pretty silly and pointless to be making purchasing decisions based on tiny marginal differences on crash tests when there are so many other more important factors that go into choosing a new car that you will like. And yes, newer Volvos are fairly atrocious on reliability. Their electrical systems and AWD systems are especially problematic. Again, Volvo made a name for itself on being unkillable tanks in the 1980s, but times have changed. The overbuilt, simple, unkillable tanks era of Volvos ended in about the mid 90s. Ironically, a large part of why they are so much less reliable is all the electronic garbage they have added in the name of safety. Nowadays Volvos are just as safe, complicated, and unreliable as any other premium European car brand. Which is to say quite safe, quite expensive, and quite unreliable. Guinness fucked around with this message at 00:28 on Oct 13, 2015 |
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2015 00:20
|
|
|
My folks had a few volvos during the 80s and the 700 series were complete tanks but the electricals were huuuuge pains in the asses. Buying one with a motorized sunroof anyplace that rained was just asking for trouble. Drivetrain and engine were solid as hell, we had a 740 wagon that was still utterly flawless going over 250k km.. Apart from the power windows, which were a loving gong show. Thankfully nothing else was powered on that car, apart from the steering which was fine.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2015 00:24
|
|
|
nm posted:Volvos were a lot safer than most for many years, but the competition has caught up. Based on IIHS results there's a good argument that subaru is the safest car maker these days and has been for almost a decade. Yeah, it is clear that certain competitors have caught up when it comes to the IIHS tests. Subaru's track record on the IIHS website is clearly impressive. I don't know much about them, I wonder if they do the same sort of testing that Volvo does with regards to crashes that aren't IIHS tested. I did some googling and this Subaru website claims they do. Glad to see other manufacturers going a little further in testing. I wonder if others do the same.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2015 00:28
|
|
|
Look through the IIHS and NHTSA score charts and you can find plenty of cases where Subaru, IMO the second safest make after Volvo, have had mediocre scores because a new test was brought in in the middle of a model cycle (2011 for the NHTSA, 2014 for IIHS). No modern Volvo as far as I can tell has scored anything less than the full score on any of the tests, at any time, except for the old Mazda3 based S40 that was kept in production for decades. The fact that Volvos will ace even tests that they weren't specifically designed for, like the XC90 acing the small overlap test despite coming out 10+ years before the test was conceived, is pretty telling proof that they take safety more seriously that other carmakers who are endlessly getting caught out by new tests as they emerge and have to go back to the drawing board to design their cars for the test. I don't agree at all with the other posters that "all cars are are safe nowadays". Yeah they don't make Pintos anymore but there's still clearly a difference between Volvo/Subaru and others.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2015 00:40
|
|
|
Throatwarbler posted:I don't agree at all with the other posters that "all cars are are safe nowadays". Yeah they don't make Pintos anymore but there's still clearly a difference between Volvo/Subaru and others. Ford's brand new Escape does Poorly in the small overlap test that Volvo has been acing since before the test was even a thing. It's kinda sad that an entry-level family car ranks poorly in *any* safety test. In fact, I think the only car that Ford sells that did "Good" in that test is the F150. Many of their cars rank "acceptable", including my brand new 2015 Fusion, while others are not even tested (I wonder why). Anything but "good" is not acceptable to me, tbh. It would appear that Ford simply does not care for the small overlap test, as a general rule. e: Kia's history is pretty horrific. Some of their cars are OK now, but holy poo poo the early 2000's Kias are death traps. Even the brand new 2015 Sportage ranks poorly in the small overlap. moon demon fucked around with this message at 00:57 on Oct 13, 2015 |
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2015 00:50
|
|
|
Last Sunday I was driving my POS ranger back from the grandparent's house in NC(~300 miles). When I finally hit my exit, I turned the radio down and noticed that the engine noise was a lot louder than normal... And I had a new *clank clank clunk* sound, which I now know was my muffler bouncing off the ground. I pulled into the local Mr Tire and handed one of the guys a $20 to just cut the exhaust off so I could drive it to a dealership. Race Exhaust! I actually kind of like it, on a short-term basis. Vroom Vroom! Sounds like a racecar, drives like the piece of poo poo it is. That is the last straw for this truck(2001 2.3L 5spd ford ranger... Ex Napa-Auto-Parts truck based on the holes in the roof, but I didn't know that when I got it. It's been beat to poo poo in only 100k miles.) My inspection sticker has been expired since December of 2014, and my plates have been expired since june of this year, because this PoS needs $4k worth of work to pass inspection, and is only worth $3k... In Good Condition. Before the exhaust fell off. CarMax offered me $500 for it. I've been riding it as long as I can without penalty, considering I only live a few miles away from my office and there are zero cops between here and there. Now that the exhaust system is resting in the bed instead of working, it sounds like a loving stock-car, and I'm a cop magnet. It's time for a new truck. I went to CarMax and they have a very nice 2014 Tacoma 2wd manual w/ 15k miles that I really like... For 22k. I looked at various Toyota dealerships in my area, and one of them has a 2016 baseline extended-cab 4x4 manual.... For 24k. Is CarMax really that full of poo poo? What am I missing, other than the limited availability of manual transmissions in light/medium trucks w/ 4wd? Tiny fucked around with this message at 02:28 on Oct 13, 2015 |
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2015 02:22
|
|
|
Used tacomas are bullshit. Carmax is kinda bullshit. I'd only buy an unrelaible car there to get a warranty that works. If you want to buy used, buy private party, but you may find that if you're financing the new one is cheaper because they get lower interest rates.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2015 02:51
|
|
|
nm posted:Used tacomas are bullshit. Why, exactly? I put 210k miles on an equivalent 1998 ranger, before I got this current POS one. And Toyota has some sort of god-like reliability and longevity reputation. Is that actually a well-deserved thing for Toyota trucks? quote:Carmax is kinda bullshit. I'd only buy an unrelaible car there to get a warranty that works. I agree that CarMax is quite bullshit. That's why I'm heading for the toyota dealership in the morning to compare. I don't have time to shop for private-party-BS, because my current race-pipe ranger is violating noise ordinances and generating complaints in my apartment complex after just a single day. My neighbors are cunts. I had a notice on my door this afternoon, even though this morning was the first time I'd cranked and driven it to work. I need to Is it fair to say that if the 2 year old carmax heap is within $2-3k of the brand new heap, it's better to just go brand new and eat the depreciation? I'm not good at negotiating and I don't have time to wait for a perfect swan vehicle to magically appear.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2015 04:39
|
|
|
Tiny posted:Why, exactly? I put 210k miles on an equivalent 1998 ranger, before I got this current POS one. And Toyota has some sort of god-like reliability and longevity reputation. Is that actually a well-deserved thing for Toyota trucks? It's not undeserved, but the reputation is bigger than the actual value. Used Tacos command stupid money. That said, isn't the current Taco still ancient? Why not go for a Colorado / Canyon since that's the only modern compact truck on the market in the US?
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2015 06:05
|
|
|
chupacabraTERROR posted:I realize this may have been a throw-away comment, but I am curious if the rest of the knowledgeable posters in this thread share this sentiment. I'm interested in Volvos primarily because of their safety, but I hadn't realized that they weren't above-average on quality and reliability. Are Volvos really not as reliable anymore? I think you're hitting the nail on the head when you ask what the 2020 tests will reveal. My old car did great back in 1997 on the single test they did (head on collision) but then you go forward several model years, they introduce side impact and moderate overlap and all of a sudden the '97 Camry is a deathtrap. That said, there have been huge strides in crash safety over the last few years, and in this model year many vehicles now ace the small overlap. All of Honda's 2016 models get a perfect score, it's likely that Toyota's incoming cars will as well, and it seems like other manufacturers will follow suit as fast as they can. The big incoming change is automatic emergency braking, as there was just an agreement by several automakers to put it in all vehicles over the next few years. While I've never been involved in an accident beyond being backed into in a parking lot, the big display in my car is a huge distraction, and driving with a baby in the back doesn't help so I'm glad to have the extra insurance. However, I probably don't really need it and I suspect many people really don't care that it exists. AEB certainly won't help if you're going to be T-boned in its current incarnation, but with Subaru introducing 360 degree Eyesight in some future models this might become a reality. Most brands systems do not perform well in the IIHS AEB test. Only Subaru, Mercedes, and surprisingly Hyundai get perfect scores in their latest vehicles. While the new Accord avoids a collision in both tests, the heavier Pilot and CRV do not, which makes me think Honda's system probably isn't all that great (unfortunately the IIHS doesn't say how much a collision is avoided by in their tests, just whether it was avoided or not). Strangely, there are Euro NCAP tests that show publicly available video of the VW Golf easily avoiding a collision at around 30mph, but in the IIHS 25mph test the VW Golf only reduces speed by 1mph. The conditions, as far as I can tell based on reading the test setup PDFs from IIHS and watching the Euro NCAP video, are exactly the same, so perhaps take the IIHS results with a grain of salt unless the Euro Golf is equipped with a different system than the US one, which seems unlikely. If the IIHS results are way off, for some reason, it's likely that many of the manufacturers who only see reductions of a few mph in the IIHS tests possibly perform better? Either way, it's weird. So back to Volvo, they were one of the first companies with an AEB system that worked relatively well. Outside of the latest XC90, their vehicles don't perform as well as Subaru/Mercedes/Hyundai, although it stands to reason that the upcoming model year should as long as they incorporate the tech on the XC90 into their other cars. I think Volvo's decision to take liability on any crashes the XC90 gets into in its autonomous mode says a lot about their confidence in the new systems (or at least is a pretty good PR selling point for it), and if you care about AEB and other tech to help you avoid a crash rather than just crash performance they're worth looking at. For what it's worth, safety was my most critical selection criteria when purchasing a new car a few weeks ago, and after a lot of research I went with Subaru despite being pretty underwhelmed with the vehicles. It's probably overkill as a cautious/defensive driver, but the blind spot detection and rear cross traffic alert make driving marginally safer every time I get in the car in a noticeable way. I'm really hoping that other makers catch up. Honda putting their Honda Sensing package as an option on all of the trims for the new Accord is great step. If you care about AEB, you can get a base trim Accord with Honda Sensing that aces the IIHS tests for under $24k. Right now if you want something fun that aces all of the tests (avoids both 12mph & 25mph collisions) you're looking at, uhhh...? A 2016 Subaru WRX with a CVT transmission? A V6 Accord? Is there anything else? I'll be shocked if this doesn't change in the next year or two. I'm not really sure if I have a point other than that Volvo is moving in the right direction despite playing catch up with Subaru along with all the other manufacturers, and I'm hoping that my next vehicle will be an extremely safe Volvo V70 that currently isn't sold in the US, or some other magical station wagon that doesn't currently exist.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2015 06:28
|
|
|
Tiny posted:Why, exactly? I put 210k miles on an equivalent 1998 ranger, before I got this current POS one. And Toyota has some sort of god-like reliability and longevity reputation. Is that actually a well-deserved thing for Toyota trucks? Used Tacos are bullshit because the fuckers barely depreciate.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2015 06:47
|
|
|
I checked out a Scion IA and really liked it. From googling, it's basically a Mazda 2, but available in the US. The only problems I'm finding for the Mazda 2 is that it had braking problems in the 2011 version. What are your experiences and thoughts on the Mazda 2?
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2015 08:05
|
|
|
Absolutely gutless and poo poo with the 4AT.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2015 12:55
|
|
|
KYOON GRIFFEY JR posted:Absolutely gutless and poo poo with the 4AT. I too would avoid the Automatic Transmission Mazda 2 at all costs. My buddy has one as his gently caress around commute car he doesn't have to care about and he quite likes tossing his around. Cheap as poo poo to maintain and doesn't suck to drive. It's his 3rd vehicle but sees the most use.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2015 15:36
|
|
|
Someone in here swears that the manual Mazda2 is great. Having driven the automatic version I can confirm that it's like taking a lawnmower on the highway.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2015 15:49
|
|
|
IRQ posted:Someone in here swears that the manual Mazda2 is great. Having driven the automatic version I can confirm that it's like taking a lawnmower on the highway. The manual version is a lot of fun. Not "fast" by any means, but 2300 lbs means that 100hp is fine. Note that the 2016+ mazda2 the scion is based on shares almost nothing with the old mazda 2. The new mazda 2 is a mazda designed platform which will have skyactiv engines and transmissions. The old mazda 2 was a lightened ford fiesta with an old mazda drivetrain.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2015 16:14
|
|
|
Yeah, I've never driven an automatic 2, but I did test-drive a manual 2 when they came out. With a stick, the power is best described as "sufficient". It doesn't seem to mind being pushed but you certainly aren't getting anywhere in a hurry with 100hp. A four-speed automatic, no matter how good, would absolutely ruin the car. That engine needs to be kept in the high end of the powerband to do anything useful.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2015 16:30
|
|
|
nm posted:The manual version is a lot of fun. Not "fast" by any means, but 2300 lbs means that 100hp is fine. I thought that the new Mazda 2 was never coming to the USA, so we may as well ignore it?
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2015 16:37
|
|
|
^^^^^ We won't get a mazda 2 in the US (outside of PR), but the scion is a reskined sedan version of the new 2. IOwnCalculus posted:Yeah, I've never driven an automatic 2, but I did test-drive a manual 2 when they came out. With a stick, the power is best described as "sufficient". It doesn't seem to mind being pushed but you certainly aren't getting anywhere in a hurry with 100hp. The new one will have a six-speed auto so it may be less annoying. One thing that is interesting is that you can get mazda2 in puerto rico. Does that mean it is federalized and epaed?
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2015 16:38
|
|
|
I drove the 6 speed automatic version of the scion, and it felt pretty good. Nothing amazing, but kicking the sport mode on felt like enough for what I need (getting around in Portland's traffic). I'm kind of scared by the thread making GBS threads on the mazda 2, but since it's the new 2016 mazda 2 I shouldn't be?
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2015 17:39
|
|
|
Brutor Fartknocker posted:I drove the 6 speed automatic version of the scion, and it felt pretty good. Nothing amazing, but kicking the sport mode on felt like enough for what I need (getting around in Portland's traffic). Who poo poo on the mazda2? I need to fight them.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2015 18:00
|
|
|
IRQ posted:Someone in here swears that the manual Mazda2 is great. Having driven the automatic version I can confirm that it's like taking a lawnmower on the highway. Maybe I'm not reading this right?
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2015 18:10
|
|
|
Can i just sign over my insurance settlement check to the dealer for a down or do I need to deposit it first and wait for it to clear?
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2015 18:12
|
|
|
Brutor Fartknocker posted:Maybe I'm not reading this right? Everyone should poo poo on a 4 speed auto attached to a 100hp engine.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2015 18:18
|
|
|
IOwnCalculus posted:A four-speed automatic, no matter how good, would absolutely ruin the car. That engine needs to be kept in the high end of the powerband to do anything useful. I'm feeling a bit confused, but mostly that the scion is a good buy. Since I'm a stupid newbie with this, what do you mean by ruin the car, and do anything useful?
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2015 19:50
|
|
|
Brutor Fartknocker posted:I'm feeling a bit confused, but mostly that the scion is a good buy. The ia does not have the 4 speed auto that the last gen mazda 2 had, so you should ignore anyone talking about it. More importantly, if you liked driving it, that is all that matters. Who cares if we liked how it drove if you did?
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2015 19:55
|
|
|
Ok, thanks. I'm just curious as to their reasons for what they didn't like about it and how. First time car buyer, so when reading stuff and a review goes on and on about button placement, I realize oh, I should pay attention to that too, reminding me to in general make sure I like the feel of everything. Got to expand my frame of reference somehow before I make the second biggest purchase of my life (God drat college is expensive).
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2015 20:07
|
|
|
I don't think the iA represents tremendously good value overall, but it's not a car that you should actively avoid. What else have you looked at?
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2015 20:10
|
|
|
Brutor Fartknocker posted:Ok, thanks. I'm just curious as to their reasons for what they didn't like about it and how. First time car buyer, so when reading stuff and a review goes on and on about button placement, I realize oh, I should pay attention to that too, reminding me to in general make sure I like the feel of everything. Got to expand my frame of reference somehow before I make the second biggest purchase of my life (God drat college is expensive). They never drove uour car because the last gen mazda2 has basically nothing to do with the scion.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2015 20:12
|
|
|
I tried a honda civic, I think it was a 2013, which was meh. The honda cr-z 2015 I tried was fun, but felt less comfortable than the scion. A Mazda 3 was a good ride, but a bit large for me. The Toyota Corolla 2012 was decent, but felt notably weaker than the scion or Mazda 3. The inside of the Mazda 3 didn't feel as good as the scion, plus the Mazda dealer tried to sell me on it with a revenge fantasy about the Japanese man who made it wrong being fired for his mistakes, so gently caress that Mazda dealer. I really like how small and tight the scion feels, and the bunch of features it has are nice. It isn't a powerhouse by any means, but it felt like it's enough to let me get around in traffic. I'm comparing it's power to my slowly dying 2000 saturn sl2, so the bar it has to beat is rather low.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2015 20:48
|
|
|
Brutor Fartknocker posted:the Mazda dealer tried to sell me on it with a revenge fantasy about the Japanese man who made it wrong being fired for his mistakes, so gently caress that Mazda dealer. 
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2015 21:50
|
|
|
Test drive in no particular order the Hyundai Accent/Elantra, the Kia Rio, the Honda Fit, the Ford Fiesta and the Chevy Sonic. The iA isn't a bad car, but you should probably drive everything else at about the same price point before you make a decision. edit: oh wait, if you're buying an automatic don't test drive the Fiesta. The others, though. KYOON GRIFFEY JR fucked around with this message at 21:58 on Oct 13, 2015 |
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2015 21:53
|
|
|
Cool, I'll try as many of those as I can find nearby. I'd get the scion in manual, but looking lightly none of the nearby dealers stock manuals. I had a chill old guy at Mazda, who halfway through passed me off to a total bro. I had already said I wasn't buying that day, and the bro started talking about the safety of the Mazda 3, that they track everything and care down to the person about the work they do. Up until now I'm feeling pretty good about his lame car salesman chat, whatever. Then he says how it would play out, that if I got in an accident, and it was decided a bolt on the tire was at fault, then the Japanese guy who poured the bolt wrong would be fired for making a bad bolt. I awkwardly laughed it off and left pretty quick.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2015 23:30
|
|
|
Unless bad bolt guy is required to commit seppuku, NO SALE
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2015 23:34
|
|
|
My 3 had a fuse blow 2 years ago, where do I claim my dead japanese auto worker? 
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2015 23:37
|
|
|
The main perk of buying a new car is that you (should) be able to get the car with the options you want. Don't pay the new tax to get a car that you're ok with. If you want a stick, get a stick, even if that requires traveling or a special order. Get the color you want too.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2015 23:38
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 10, 2024 23:11 |
|
|
Also if you are willing to do stick definitely try out the Fiesta. The name means party, you can't go wrong.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2015 23:40
|
|