Your current car!

[Max Rockatansky]

Do either of y'all get claustrophobic driving the Challenger? When I drove the Challenger and Camaro at my last job, I got it really bad. Sometimes gave me a headache.

It is the roomiest car I have ever owned. The driverside seat (electrically) slides all the way against the backseat.

I noticed there is some guy at the same gym as me that has a Plum Crazy Challenger but it's an SXT...I thought that was odd that all colors were on all trims now.   

Plum crazy, black cherry, and the darker blue are beautiful on Challengers, but I too noticed these were assigned to trim packages. Maybe the guy at the gym special ordered his?

It's definitely made for a big person and the underpinning the E-Class are pretty obvious.  One of the people I work with out in Washington got an SXT just for the comfort of a big car.  I want to say Chrysler made all the special colors normal options on all trims.  I saw a Sublime Green SXT floating around the other day as well.  The colors might be a limited run still though. 

[jakeroot]

Do either of y'all get claustrophobic driving the Challenger? When I drove the Challenger and Camaro at my last job, I got it really bad. Sometimes gave me a headache.

It is the roomiest car I have ever owned. The driverside seat (electrically) slides all the way against the backseat.

I'm not saying it's not roomy. It's the size of a tank. But, the roof line is quite low, making the windows quite short. That was the problem I had. Felt like I was being closed in on.

[cjk374]

Do either of y'all get claustrophobic driving the Challenger? When I drove the Challenger and Camaro at my last job, I got it really bad. Sometimes gave me a headache.

It is the roomiest car I have ever owned. The driverside seat (electrically) slides all the way against the backseat.

I'm not saying it's not roomy. It's the size of a tank. But, the roof line is quite low, making the windows quite short. That was the problem I had. Felt like I was being closed in on.

I understand what you mean now.  I am 6'4" tall, and I have my driver's seat all the way down and all the way back. The ceiling is just above my head to almost touching. Looking out the back windows before changing lanes can be a challenge as well. But I don't get claustrophobic.

[Max Rockatansky]

Do either of y'all get claustrophobic driving the Challenger? When I drove the Challenger and Camaro at my last job, I got it really bad. Sometimes gave me a headache.

It is the roomiest car I have ever owned. The driverside seat (electrically) slides all the way against the backseat.

I'm not saying it's not roomy. It's the size of a tank. But, the roof line is quite low, making the windows quite short. That was the problem I had. Felt like I was being closed in on.

I understand what you mean now.  I am 6'4" tall, and I have my driver's seat all the way down and all the way back. The ceiling is just above my head to almost touching. Looking out the back windows before changing lanes can be a challenge as well. But I don't get claustrophobic.

Dimension wise I'd say the Challenger has more in common size wise at 197 inches with the old Personal Luxury Couple segment versus the Pony Car segment.  The Challenger definitely dwarves the Camaro and Mustang in regards to size dimensions.  I almost feel small sitting in mine by myself sometimes, I shutter to think how it would feel in a 210-220 inch long cars that used to be fairly common place. 

[cjk374]

Do either of y'all get claustrophobic driving the Challenger? When I drove the Challenger and Camaro at my last job, I got it really bad. Sometimes gave me a headache.

It is the roomiest car I have ever owned. The driverside seat (electrically) slides all the way against the backseat.

I'm not saying it's not roomy. It's the size of a tank. But, the roof line is quite low, making the windows quite short. That was the problem I had. Felt like I was being closed in on.

I understand what you mean now.  I am 6'4" tall, and I have my driver's seat all the way down and all the way back. The ceiling is just above my head to almost touching. Looking out the back windows before changing lanes can be a challenge as well. But I don't get claustrophobic.

Dimension wise I'd say the Challenger has more in common size wise at 197 inches with the old Personal Luxury Couple segment versus the Pony Car segment.  The Challenger definitely dwarves the Camaro and Mustang in regards to size dimensions.  I almost feel small sitting in mine by myself sometimes, I shutter to think how it would feel in a 210-220 inch long cars that used to be fairly common place. 

And those old land yachts always felt like you were riding on a cloud. These newer cars don't even come close to that feel.

[Max Rockatansky]

Do either of y'all get claustrophobic driving the Challenger? When I drove the Challenger and Camaro at my last job, I got it really bad. Sometimes gave me a headache.

It is the roomiest car I have ever owned. The driverside seat (electrically) slides all the way against the backseat.

I'm not saying it's not roomy. It's the size of a tank. But, the roof line is quite low, making the windows quite short. That was the problem I had. Felt like I was being closed in on.

I understand what you mean now.  I am 6'4" tall, and I have my driver's seat all the way down and all the way back. The ceiling is just above my head to almost touching. Looking out the back windows before changing lanes can be a challenge as well. But I don't get claustrophobic.

Dimension wise I'd say the Challenger has more in common size wise at 197 inches with the old Personal Luxury Couple segment versus the Pony Car segment.  The Challenger definitely dwarves the Camaro and Mustang in regards to size dimensions.  I almost feel small sitting in mine by myself sometimes, I shutter to think how it would feel in a 210-220 inch long cars that used to be fairly common place. 

And those old land yachts always felt like you were riding on a cloud. These newer cars don't even come close to that feel.

Some of those power steering pumps so powerful that you could steer with your pinky.  I drove a 7th Gen Eldorado once at a car show for my brothers Step Dad, it had a bad pump on it.  I've never to wrench a car so hard hand over hand to even get it to turn slight.  I don't recall if it had a 425 or 500 but I think it was the former. 

[abefroman329]

Do either of y'all get claustrophobic driving the Challenger?

Not at all, though I never owned one, just rented one on several occasions. If anything, it felt like piloting a small speedboat, the sort JFK might have owned.

My wife and I are in love with the car, though the ship has probably sailed on ownership, since you probably can't fit a carseat in the back.

[cjk374]

According to the owners manual, it has anchors to hold a child seat in the car. Someone up front may not have much leg room.

[Thing 342]

I'm currently driving a 2008 Honda Accord EX-L with about 135K miles that I received from my dad in 2016 at about 105K (pictured above). While it's a solid machine that will likely go well past 200K with proper maintenance, it's also got a nagging oil burn problem and the leather interior is starting to tear, plus it lacks a lot of the nicer features found in newer cars.

I'll be graduating college largely debt-free (Thanks to a combination of savings, work-study, and penny pinching), so I'm interesting in getting even more debt a new car as a present to myself when I graduate in May. I'd prefer buying new, though would consider buying used for the right price. I'm currently looking at the newest generation of Accords, as well as the new Honda Insights (or one of the new Volvo XC40s if $10K suddenly fell into my lap ), my budget largely predicated on where I can find a job after college.

[Takumi]

My former TSX, which has a slightly more aggressively tuned version of the same engine as that Accord, had the same oil burning problem. I didn't find it a big deal, just topped it off regularly. Interestingly, my TL is known to commonly have an oil-burning issue, but mine does not.

A recent photo of the TL, with a proper camera.


And an in-depth review after a month of ownership:
https://oppositelock.kinja.com/2012-acura-tl-sh-awd-advance-the-oppositelock-review-1828569183

[PHLBOS]

I drove a 7th Gen Eldorado once at a car show for my brothers Step Dad, it had a bad pump on it.  I've never to wrench a car so hard hand over hand to even get it to turn slight.  I don't recall if it had a 425 or 500 but I think it was the former. 

For those that don't know; 7th Generation = '71-'78 vintage, which were well over 220 inches long; the '71-'76 models had the 500, the '77-'78 had the 425.

[Thing 342]

My former TSX, which has a slightly more aggressively tuned version of the same engine as that Accord, had the same oil burning problem. I didn't find it a big deal, just topped it off regularly. Interestingly, my TL is known to commonly have an oil-burning issue, but mine does not.

A recent photo of the TL, with a proper camera.


And an in-depth review after a month of ownership:
https://oppositelock.kinja.com/2012-acura-tl-sh-awd-advance-the-oppositelock-review-1828569183

What was the consumption rate of your TSX? I have to put another quart in my Accord every thousand miles or so. While it's not a huge expense ($8-ish every month or so won't break the bank) it's still something I'd rather not deal with.

[riiga]

I'd prefer buying new, though would consider buying used for the right price. I'm currently looking at the newest generation of Accords, as well as the new Honda Insights (or one of the new Volvo XC40s if $10K suddenly fell into my lap ), my budget largely predicated on where I can find a job after college.

Buy a 2 or 3 year old car with only one previous owner, preferably one with few miles. It will save you a lot of money, you'll get most of the new features, and if it's an Asian car the warranty will (most probably) still be there. No idea about each state, but if you're covered by laws for hidden defects (lemon law?) in used cars, it's about as safe as buying a new car.

[Max Rockatansky]

I drove a 7th Gen Eldorado once at a car show for my brothers Step Dad, it had a bad pump on it.  I've never to wrench a car so hard hand over hand to even get it to turn slight.  I don't recall if it had a 425 or 500 but I think it was the former. 

For those that don't know; 7th Generation = '71-'78 vintage, which were well over 220 inches long; the '71-'76 models had the 500, the '77-'78 had the 425.

I asked it was a 77 and therefore a 425. 

[J N Winkler]

My 1994 Saturn SL2 has the same oil-burning problem as virtually all other Saturn S-Series cars, which is the result of an engineering decision to accept slow drainback to mitigate the low film strength of the 5W-30 oils that were available in the late 1980's when the engine was being designed.  The slow drainback results in the oil heating up until it cokes and causes the piston rings to stick so that they sweep oil off the cylinder walls less efficiently.

I have managed to hold the consumption rate at 1500 MPQ by using synthetic oil with an extra-long oil filter (200 mL of added oil capacity) and deliberately overfilling the crankcase by 200 mL.  This gives me almost half a quart of working room before the oil goes below nominal full capacity, and I usually find myself topping off just before every second fillup (tank range is about 300 miles for mostly-city driving).

Four-bangers tend to be designed for high specific output, so I frankly don't trust them not to develop oil burning issues similar to my Saturn.  The other four-banger in the family, a 2009 Honda Fit, is starting to burn oil as well.  It used to get about 15,000 MPQ but at the last oil change this had gone down to about 10,000 MPQ, so I think it is time to start systematically overfilling the crankcase.  (There is not really enough room in front of the oil filter mount to use an extra-long filter.)

The 2005 Camry (roadtrip vehicle) has a V6 with zero observable oil consumption.  (There is some up-and-down fluctuation when I check the oil level, which I suspect is due to variation in how much oil ends up trapped in the VVT solenoid assemblies.)  I don't hear much about V6s burning oil, and the last V6 I owned (1986 Nissan Maxima) didn't seem to burn any oil even when it had more than 200,000 miles.  Meanwhile, Camry four-bangers (2AZ-FE engine) are notorious for burning oil.

[Takumi]

My former TSX, which has a slightly more aggressively tuned version of the same engine as that Accord, had the same oil burning problem. I didn't find it a big deal, just topped it off regularly. Interestingly, my TL is known to commonly have an oil-burning issue, but mine does not.

A recent photo of the TL, with a proper camera.


And an in-depth review after a month of ownership:
https://oppositelock.kinja.com/2012-acura-tl-sh-awd-advance-the-oppositelock-review-1828569183

What was the consumption rate of your TSX? I have to put another quart in my Accord every thousand miles or so. While it's not a huge expense ($8-ish every month or so won't break the bank) it's still something I'd rather not deal with.

It was about the same, maybe a little less. I had it for a year and put about 9,000 miles on it, did one oil change and was about halfway to another when I traded it in. A quart per thousand is supposedly the threshold for normal use according to Honda and Acura.

[TheStranger]

My 1997 Thunderbird I bought a year and a day ago:

r82517tbird by Chris Sampang, on Flickr

Got it at 82K miles, now at 95K miles.  (Also, many fixes later too lol)  I've explored some back roads in the Bay Area that I hadn't driven before (namely 84 west of 280, 35 between 92 and 84, and Skyline Boulevard in Oakland) in this thing, and have taken one long roadtrip so far (SF-Fresno).  Going to take it down to Monterey in a  few weeks en route to the Porsche weekend at Laguna Seca.

[Thing 342]

I'd prefer buying new, though would consider buying used for the right price. I'm currently looking at the newest generation of Accords, as well as the new Honda Insights (or one of the new Volvo XC40s if $10K suddenly fell into my lap ), my budget largely predicated on where I can find a job after college.

Buy a 2 or 3 year old car with only one previous owner, preferably one with few miles. It will save you a lot of money, you'll get most of the new features, and if it's an Asian car the warranty will (most probably) still be there. No idea about each state, but if you're covered by laws for hidden defects (lemon law?) in used cars, it's about as safe as buying a new car.

Good advice, though most of the models I'm looking at ('18 Accord, '19 Insight, '19 VW Jetta) have received refreshes in the current model year.

I'm currently very interested in the newest generation of the VW Jetta. A fairly low starting MSRP plus heavy incentives from VW mean that you can pretty much get most of the major tech features of an Audi (such as the Digital Cockpit) in a roughly $24K package. VW certainly seem very keen on pushing this car towards millennials, as they bought up a lot of advertising during the World Cup during a time when sedans are pretty rapidly losing ground to small SUVs (a weak point in VW's lineup, IMO). The darn things are hard to find though, as I couldn't find a drivable one in the SEL trim anywhere in Hampton Roads, and the closest to me here in Blacksburg is an SEL Premium in Winston-Salem.

[J N Winkler]

It was about the same, maybe a little less. I had it for a year and put about 9,000 miles on it, did one oil change and was about halfway to another when I traded it in. A quart per thousand is supposedly the threshold for normal use according to Honda and Acura.

There is enough variation in thresholds for normal oil consumption to prompt the suspicion that they are driven primarily by commercial considerations (specifically, the manufacturer's willingness to accept liability for repairs, traded off against goodwill for future purchases) rather than engineering.

*  Saturn S-Series:  acceptable oil consumption of 2000 MPQ, per a service bulletin issued to address the ring coking problem.  1500 MPQ is the breakpoint between two suggested remedies:  lower is treatable with a factory-approved piston soak procedure (people now use Kreen since GM's own chemical has been withdrawn from the market for environmental reasons), while higher requires disassembly for ring replacement.

*  Toyota Camry (2AZ-FE engine):  acceptable oil consumption of 1200 MPQ, per the terms of the extended warranty coverage for the oil-burning problem specific to this engine.  A sealed dipstick test is used to verify eligibility for repairs under warranty.

My personal view, having had to maintain an oil topoff regime for one car and design one for another, is that any observable oil consumption is too much.  The cylinder/ring aspect of the break-in process is still poorly understood, but since the 1920's at least automakers have known what design choices typically result in engines that offer good durability without noticeable oil consumption, so any engine that does burn oil is typically consciously engineered to do so.  I decline to endorse such decisions with my car-buying dollar.

[Takumi]

One contributor, at least for newer cars, is the comparatively thinner oils they use vs. older ones. On my TL, for example, there two engines, based on whether the car is FWD or AWD. The FWD version has a 3.5L V6 that takes 0w-20 oil from the factory, while my AWD TL has a 3.7L V6 that takes 5w-20 (also the same weight my TSX took). Reading on Acura forums, switching to 5w-30 in the AWD TL reduces oil burning but also lowers fuel economy. It's also worth noting that the 3.5 in the FWD version does not have the oil burning issue due to having a less complex variable valve timing system than the AWD, but I wanted the AWD version for its performance advantages, and, selfishly, its far more imposing factory exhaust note.

[Max Rockatansky]

Just swapped out my 2014 Chevy Sonic LT Turbo for a 2019 Subaru Impreza Sedan:

IMG_0289 by Max Rockatansky, on Flickr

IMG_0290 by Max Rockatansky, on Flickr

IMG_0295 by Max Rockatansky, on Flickr

IMG_0297 by Max Rockatansky, on Flickr

IMG_0299 by Max Rockatansky, on Flickr

Anyone who reads my posts on Pacific Southwest probably can gather I was after better dirt road and bad weather capability with AWD.  To that end I'll be ordering snow cables from the dealer later this week, it should mitigate some concerns I had with the Sonic in R2 chain control areas.

Aside from that I really wanted a compact sized car that had four-wheel disc brakes which the Impreza comes with.  The front discs are vented 10.9 inches while the rear are conventional 10.8 inch discs.  It definitely should help with the warping issues I had with the Sonic, even copious amounts of low gear didn't help at times. 

I like the feel of the Subaru flat-fours, but I will admit I can feel the difference in power between the 2.0 in the Impreza versus my fiance's 2.5 Forester.  Aside from that the only thing that I didn't like on the base model was hubcaps, I'll probably take them off to show the steelies.  I didn't really care to get additional options but I've heard good things about Subaru Eyesight.  The sedan is only 182.1 inches long which is plenty short enough that I didn't bother to pay the premium on the 175.6 inch long hatchback.

[cjk374]

Congrats on the new ride Max. The legroom looks like it is lacking....especially when compared to the Challenger. Is this true or is the picture just not doing the cab justice.

BTW...I like peanut M&Ms too. 

[Max Rockatansky]

Congrats on the new ride Max. The legroom looks like it is lacking....especially when compared to the Challenger. Is this true or is the picture just not doing the cab justice.

BTW...I like peanut M&Ms too. 

It's actually pretty comfortable.  I was sitting in the back being being driven around the block last night and there was some minor headroom issues.  Up front things are way more spacious than the Sonic was. 

Yes, I agree the Challenger feels like cavernous compared to the Impreza or Sonic...I would say it's more roomy than many SUVs up front. 

I was preparing to go into Costco after I bought the Impreza, there was no way I was dealing with those crowds on an empty stomach.  I prefer the peanut butter M&Ms but finding the small bag is difficult sometimes. 

[J N Winkler]

Aside from that I really wanted a compact sized car that had four-wheel disc brakes which the Impreza comes with.  The front discs are vented 10.9 inches while the rear are conventional 10.8 inch discs.  It definitely should help with the warping issues I had with the Sonic, even copious amounts of low gear didn't help at times.

I wonder if that had to do with a low ratio of engine displacement to curb weight.  The vehicles I have taken into the mountains have generally had curb weights of 1000-1250 pounds per liter of engine displacement (1986 Nissan Maxima:  1046 lb/L; 1994 Saturn SL2:  1205 lb/L; 2005 Toyota Camry with V6: 1142 lb/L), though on a 2012 roadtrip to Colorado I obtained satisfactory control of speed on downgrades through engine braking alone from a vehicle with a much less favorable ratio (2009 Honda Fit:  1659 lb/L).  However, it seems yours was even further away from the ~1100 lb/L cluster (2014 Chevy Sonic LT:  2086 lb/L).

Probably the trickiest vehicle I have used for hill descents is the Saturn, which is not allowed on the Mount Washington auto road because it lacks a selectable 1 range.  However, it has satisfactorily handled Ebbetts Pass (maximum grade 26%, none sustained for significant length) and the Pikes Peak toll road (average grade about 7%, steep grades near summit manageable in 2 range with braking at hairpins only, instant clearance from brake-cooling "penalty box").

[Max Rockatansky]

Aside from that I really wanted a compact sized car that had four-wheel disc brakes which the Impreza comes with.  The front discs are vented 10.9 inches while the rear are conventional 10.8 inch discs.  It definitely should help with the warping issues I had with the Sonic, even copious amounts of low gear didn't help at times.

I wonder if that had to do with a low ratio of engine displacement to curb weight.  The vehicles I have taken into the mountains have generally had curb weights of 1000-1250 pounds per liter of engine displacement (1986 Nissan Maxima:  1046 lb/L; 1994 Saturn SL2:  1205 lb/L; 2005 Toyota Camry with V6: 1142 lb/L), though on a 2012 roadtrip to Colorado I obtained satisfactory control of speed on downgrades through engine braking alone from a vehicle with a much less favorable ratio (2009 Honda Fit:  1659 lb/L).  However, it seems yours was even further away from the ~1100 lb/L cluster (2014 Chevy Sonic LT:  2086 lb/L).

Probably the trickiest vehicle I have used for hill descents is the Saturn, which is not allowed on the Mount Washington auto road because it lacks a selectable 1 range.  However, it has satisfactorily handled Ebbetts Pass (maximum grade 26%, none sustained for significant length) and the Pikes Peak toll road (average grade about 7%, steep grades near summit manageable in 2 range with braking at hairpins only, instant clearance from brake-cooling "penalty box").

I actually managed Pikes Peak in a rental lacking a low gear selector a couple years ago by stopping every 2,500 feet to let it cool which worked out since I was taking photos of the downhill grades anyways.  The only roadway in the Sierras that I'm aware of that absolutely requires 2nd or 1st gear is Mineral King Road.  Most of the other roadways in the Sierras that have high grades don't have them sustained for very long but Mineral King lasts around 15-20% for several miles between 5,500 feet and 2,700 feet.  Mineral King Road actually has signage telling drivers which gear to select whereas State Highways in California only have such restrictions for truckers.  I found Ebbetts Pass on CA 4 to be probably the most difficult State Highway grade by a large margin, CA 108 was slightly higher at 26% but doesn't last very long.

To that end using low gear in the Sonic would yield about 15 MPH at 3,500 RPM in 1st and 25 MPH in 2nd.  Usually the roadways that would require 1st or 2nd weren't an issue given they were generally one or one and half lanes somewhere up in the Sierras.  3rd gear was a bigger issue because because it would easily go all the way up to red line if I let it due to the gear ratios and had minimal effect on engine braking the car.  I warped the brakes (which were obviously unvented) both times on a 8% grades which were on CA 63 south from CA 180 (which I suspect wasn't helped by the fact I had built up heat coming down CA 180) and CA 190 heading west down Towne Pass.  The only place I ever found 3rd gear all that useful was roads like Tioga Pass on CA 120, CA 89 south off of Monitor Pass, or the east end of CA 155 where 45-50 MPH could be sustained without much effort.

So in that regard the Impreza does have a low gear selector but I found it kind of lacking when I was doing a test drive.  Given I was using the low gear selector on a flat grade in a parking lot I'll be curious to see how it handles something like the Generals Highway if i can get out there this week.  If I were to compare I would say the low gear selector had a similar feel to 2nd gear in the Sonic, but again I'll have to try it in the real world to determine a feel better.