What's your personal choice/recommendation for a starting vechicle?

[Duke87]

In my experience, Ford's, particularly recent models, have transmissions that tend to shudder when changing gears (P>D, D>R, etc). Consumer Reports owner surveys have shown that some Ford Models (Fiesta and Focus) have terrible autoboxes. Keep that in mind if you're looking newer (not that it matters as I'm sure you've already bought).

There have been quite a few transmission complaints about the Focus and Fiesta from model years 2013-2016. Some of them legitimate - there was a recall about it a couple years ago. This year there was a class action suit about it. I know two people with 2013 Focuses, both have had to take them in to get an issue with the transmission fixed at least once.

On the other hand, mixed in with this are also a lot of complaints about nothing more than the transmission having hard shifts - which is not actually a problem, it's simply the car working as it is supposed to but against the expectation of the user.

See, while these cars have been marketed as having automatic transmissions, they do not have the slushboxes that most American drivers are used to and probably take the behavior of for granted since they have no experience with anything else. What these cars actually have is a computer-controlled dual-clutch transmission - which, naturally, produces shifts you can feel because it doesn't slip like a hydraulic automatic does. The tradeoff is better fuel economy, both due to the lack of slippage and due to the fact that a dual-clutch weighs less.

[TheArkansasRoadgeek]

In my experience, Ford's, particularly recent models, have transmissions that tend to shudder when changing gears (P>D, D>R, etc). Consumer Reports owner surveys have shown that some Ford Models (Fiesta and Focus) have terrible autoboxes. Keep that in mind if you're looking newer (not that it matters as I'm sure you've already bought).

There have been quite a few transmission complaints about the Focus and Fiesta from model years 2013-2016. Some of them legitimate - there was a recall about it a couple years ago. This year there was a class action suit about it. I know two people with 2013 Focuses, both have had to take them in to get an issue with the transmission fixed at least once.

On the other hand, mixed in with this are also a lot of complaints about nothing more than the transmission having hard shifts - which is not actually a problem, it's simply the car working as it is supposed to but against the expectation of the user.

See, while these cars have been marketed as having automatic transmissions, they do not have the slushboxes that most American drivers are used to and probably take the behavior of for granted since they have no experience with anything else. What these cars actually have is a computer-controlled dual-clutch transmission - which, naturally, produces shifts you can feel because it doesn't slip like a hydraulic automatic does. The tradeoff is better fuel economy, both due to the lack of slippage and due to the fact that a dual-clutch weighs less.

I hate to say it, but even from Ford's early days, it has built its vehicles cheap.

[jakeroot]

while these cars have been marketed as having automatic transmissions, they do not have the slushboxes that most American drivers are used to and probably take the behavior of for granted since they have no experience with anything else. What these cars actually have is a computer-controlled dual-clutch transmission - which, naturally, produces shifts you can feel because it doesn't slip like a hydraulic automatic does. The tradeoff is better fuel economy, both due to the lack of slippage and due to the fact that a dual-clutch weighs less.

I do not get the appeal of dual-clutch gearboxes. They shift the way a new driver would in a manual. I get that they can be faster, and use less fuel. But they're just not comfortable. If I want to feel my gear changes, I'll get a manual (and I do, so I did).

Toyota, Lexus, and a few other automakers (amongst them being Audi/Porsche) use Aisin 8 speed gearboxes, which (to me) feel far better than any dual-clutch or ZF-designed 8 or 9 speed (minus those used in high-power cars).

[DaBigE]

In my experience, Ford's, particularly recent models, have transmissions that tend to shudder when changing gears (P>D, D>R, etc). Consumer Reports owner surveys have shown that some Ford Models (Fiesta and Focus) have terrible autoboxes. Keep that in mind if you're looking newer (not that it matters as I'm sure you've already bought).

Not to be nit picky, but the transmission shudder isn't when changing directional gears or in and out of park, it's upshifts and downshifts (1>2, 2>3, 3>2, ...). My wife has a '13 Fiesta and I'm well-aware of the headaches the PowerShift transmission has. When it works, it's a wonderful transmission - very crisp, quick shifts, almost unnoticeable. The Achilles heel is the clutch pack design, as my wife's car has been through at least three of them (all on Ford's dime  ). Not to jinx it, but I think they've finally found one that works, which is too bad, since the next redesign of the Fiesta & Focus will have a "traditional" slushbox.

On the other hand, mixed in with this are also a lot of complaints about nothing more than the transmission having hard shifts - which is not actually a problem, it's simply the car working as it is supposed to but against the expectation of the user.

^This. I almost feel sorry for some of the sales & service people for this situation.

I do not get the appeal of dual-clutch gearboxes. They shift the way a new driver would in a manual. I get that they can be faster, and use less fuel. But they're just not comfortable. If I want to feel my gear changes, I'll get a manual (and I do, so I did).

I think you answered your own question there.

I hate to say it, but even from Ford's early days, it has built its vehicles cheap.

It's all a matter of perspective, experience, and how your relatives/celebrity idol spokespeople brainwash you. Many people I know would say the same about Chevy or Toyota. A friend of mine has a 2017 Chevy Cruze as a loaner while her regular car is in the body shop. When she let me look at it, I thought the hood release was going to break off in my hand when I tried to open the hood. As for the prop rod, well, I've seen fishing poles that seemed sturdier.

[J N Winkler]

Consumer acceptance is definitely a factor in slow take-up of dual-clutch automatic transmissions in the US.  I'm also skeptical that they offer much of a fuel efficiency advantage over traditional designs that have lockup in low as well as high gears, a strategy tried in the Saturn S-Series and the Honda Fit.

In any case, I think it is still too soon to see novel technologies like CVTs and dual-clutch in the sub-$2000 band.  There the issue tends to be transmissions that have never had the fluid changed and are therefore slam-shifting, engaging gear late, etc. because the factory fluid is badly sheared down.  Some of them will respond quite well to two or three drains and fills with an appropriately chosen new fluid to bring the contents of the sump up to the out-of-bottle viscosity of the OEM fluid.  But sheardown accelerates wear on hard parts, and a share of these transmissions will already be past the point of no return.

In 2006 most automakers changed from higher-viscosity to lower-viscosity ATFs.  The official line is that, with a few conspicuous exceptions (notably the Saturn S-Series), the thinner fluids are backward-compatible with the thicker ones, and there are some universal formulations (e.g. Valvoline MaxLife full synthetic ATF and a now-obsolete formulation of Amsoil ATF) that claim compatibility with both higher- and lower-viscosity specifications.  Friction modifier additives have also been used extensively since the 1990's and these tend to obscure the effects of viscosity on shift quality.  Nevertheless, for a car being kept indefinitely, I increasingly think it makes sense to match the out-of-bottle viscosity of the factory fluid using a shear-stable full-synthetic ATF.

[jakeroot]

In my experience, Ford's, particularly recent models, have transmissions that tend to shudder when changing gears (P>D, D>R, etc). Consumer Reports owner surveys have shown that some Ford Models (Fiesta and Focus) have terrible autoboxes. Keep that in mind if you're looking newer (not that it matters as I'm sure you've already bought).

Not to be nit picky, but the transmission shudder isn't when changing directional gears or in and out of park, it's upshifts and downshifts (1>2, 2>3, 3>2, ...). My wife has a '13 Fiesta and I'm well-aware of the headaches the PowerShift transmission has. When it works, it's a wonderful transmission - very crisp, quick shifts, almost unnoticeable. The Achilles heel is the clutch pack design, as my wife's car has been through at least three of them (all on Ford's dime  ). Not to jinx it, but I think they've finally found one that works, which is too bad, since the next redesign of the Fiesta & Focus will have a "traditional" slushbox.

Yes, you would be correct. Although, on cold starts, where a Toyota or Nissan (with a more traditional slushbox or CVT) will go into D and pull away without a fuss, Ford's seem to struggle noticeably more, both shifting into D (a bit of shuddering), and then pulling away and changing gears. Very few cars seem to struggle under this scenario quite like the PowerShift gearbox does (except Chrysler's 200 with the ZF 9-speed, which may very well be my least favorite car+transmission of all time).

By the way, welcome back.

[Takumi]

In any case, I think it is still too soon to see novel technologies like CVTs and dual-clutch in the sub-$2000 band.

DCTs, yes, but a few early-mid 2000s cars with CVTs can be found in that range from time to time. A friend of mine has a mid-00s Mazda 6 with one that he got for cheap because it has an electrical issue.

[formulanone]

To the original poster, try out a few vehicles from friends and family members and see what you like and dislike about them. You'll narrow down your choices a little, and your decision won't seem so difficult.

[TheArkansasRoadgeek]

Damn! I am going to be a well vested buyer with all these great tips and suggestions!

[J N Winkler]

In connection with this topic, I'd make a couple of reading suggestions.

First, George Akerlof's famous 1970 paper on "The market for lemons" describes the used-car buying experience as a specific example of the general problem of dealing with information asymmetry.  Some of the advice given upthread is aimed at reducing the imbalance in information between buyer and seller by, e.g., developing other information and expertise that can be used to cross-check the seller's claims.  Other advice addresses the spike in shoe-leather costs (in this case, looking at many used cars and finding each to be not quite good enough) that can result from tackling the problem frontally by refusing to buy under imperfect information.  Ultimately, finding a good used car to buy involves balancing these two considerations.

Second, the National Academies Press has a book (free PDF download available) dealing with the various technologies automakers are deploying in an attempt to meet more stringent fuel efficiency targets.  There is a chapter on transmissions that deals with DCTs and CVTs in more detail, as well as another on engines that addresses GDI, turbos, Atkinson cycle, etc.  The general theme for both engines and transmissions is that most of the new technologies lead to significant driveability and NVH issues.  This empirical observation also applies to previous episodes of regulatory tightening in terms of emissions and CAFE, such as the late 1970's.  In a sense there are advantages to buying from a period with stagnant CAFE standards since all of the potential driveability issues associated with old-school technologies like normally aspirated engines and hydraulic automatic transmissions were solved long ago, although automakers' particular implementations are occasionally deficient.

[TheArkansasRoadgeek]

Could this thread be earmarked or something? It has such good information and experience, I'd like to have this thread (after resolution) as an archive piece for those with similar questions or concerns for those that are shopping or buying. Maybe a move to Transit for more relevance?

[kphoger]

Toyota Corolla
Honda Civic

[TheArkansasRoadgeek]

Toyota Corolla
Honda Civic

My dad is for Toyota and Honda, he says, "Look for this brand due to reliability,". But, since we have established upthread that all manufacturers are about even, I ask is it worth it?

[kphoger]

Toyota Corolla
Honda Civic

My dad is for Toyota and Honda, he says, "Look for this brand due to reliability,". But, since we have established upthread that all manufacturers are about even, I ask is it worth it?

I don't agree that all manufacturers are about even, but I do agree that the gap has narrowed a lot in the last 20 years.  For reliability, I recommend doing your research on sites like www.edmunds.com and www.carcomplaints.com.  The former will give you both anecdotal and professional reviews of the models you're interested, and the latter will alert you to known issues with those models.  For example, the car I drive goes off the chart with transmission problems, but they're almost all due to a known issue of coolant leaking into the transmission and killing both radiator and tranny.  This is a problem that can be averted by installing an aftermarket transmission cooler and bypassing the offending loop.  (Incidentally, the car I totaled last year had had one of those installed by a previous owner.)  Before buying a car, do a lot of research and find out how reliable it is, and whether or not you're willing to overlook what other people might get huffy about.

[Roadgeekteen]

WW2 t28 tank

[TheArkansasRoadgeek]

WW2 t28 tank

Please, contribute legitimate information to the topic, unless otherwise stated upthread.
This thread WILL NOT be derailed due to childish statements.

Thank you!

[Roadgeekteen]

WW2 t28 tank

Please, contribute legitimate information to the topic, unless otherwise stated upthread.
This thread WILL NOT be derailed due to childish statements.

Thank you!

Seems like you don't appreciate my humor...

[ColossalBlocks]

A Boeing 747. Great for those drives to parties.

On a serious note, get an economy car, like a Focus, or Fusion.

[J N Winkler]

Toyota Corolla
Honda Civic

Every time I look on Craigslist for Corollavics for sale in the Wichita area, I see hail-damaged specimens selling for silly money.

My dad is for Toyota and Honda, he says, "Look for this brand due to reliability,". But, since we have established upthread that all manufacturers are about even, I ask is it worth it?

I don't agree that all manufacturers are about even, but I do agree that the gap has narrowed a lot in the last 20 years.  For reliability, I recommend doing your research on sites like www.edmunds.com and www.carcomplaints.com.  The former will give you both anecdotal and professional reviews of the models you're interested, and the latter will alert you to known issues with those models.  For example, the car I drive goes off the chart with transmission problems, but they're almost all due to a known issue of coolant leaking into the transmission and killing both radiator and tranny.  This is a problem that can be averted by installing an aftermarket transmission cooler and bypassing the offending loop.  (Incidentally, the car I totaled last year had had one of those installed by a previous owner.)  Before buying a car, do a lot of research and find out how reliable it is, and whether or not you're willing to overlook what other people might get huffy about.

These days, Consumer Reports (described as "good bathroom reading" on marque forums) advises car shoppers to assess reliability by model rather than marque.  Toyota, for example, has a reputation for reliability, but even it has produced some turkeys, such as the recently redesigned Tacoma pickup.  I would go even further:  to get a full picture of reliability you need to drill down to make, model, generation, and engine/transmission combination, and consider issues that are not classified as reliability faults.  For example, a fifth-generation Toyota Camry with the 1MZ-FE V6 engine is usually a safe bet as long as the timing belt was replaced when that job fell due and the replacement included a new water pump and new front oil seals, but for a same-generation Camry with the 2AZ-FE engine it is desirable to establish how much oil it burns.  Oil consumption itself is not generally considered a fault for purposes of assessing reliability.

[kphoger]

My dad is for Toyota and Honda, he says, "Look for this brand due to reliability,". But, since we have established upthread that all manufacturers are about even, I ask is it worth it?

I don't agree that all manufacturers are about even, but I do agree that the gap has narrowed a lot in the last 20 years.  For reliability, I recommend doing your research on sites like www.edmunds.com and www.carcomplaints.com.  The former will give you both anecdotal and professional reviews of the models you're interested, and the latter will alert you to known issues with those models.  For example, the car I drive goes off the chart with transmission problems, but they're almost all due to a known issue of coolant leaking into the transmission and killing both radiator and tranny.  This is a problem that can be averted by installing an aftermarket transmission cooler and bypassing the offending loop.  (Incidentally, the car I totaled last year had had one of those installed by a previous owner.)  Before buying a car, do a lot of research and find out how reliable it is, and whether or not you're willing to overlook what other people might get huffy about.

These days, Consumer Reports (described as "good bathroom reading" on marque forums) advises car shoppers to assess reliability by model rather than marque.  Toyota, for example, has a reputation for reliability, but even it has produced some turkeys, such as the recently redesigned Tacoma pickup.  I would go even further:  to get a full picture of reliability you need to drill down to make, model, generation, and engine/transmission combination, and consider issues that are not classified as reliability faults.  For example, a fifth-generation Toyota Camry with the 1MZ-FE V6 engine is usually a safe bet as long as the timing belt was replaced when that job fell due and the replacement included a new water pump and new front oil seals, but for a same-generation Camry with the 2AZ-FE engine it is desirable to establish how much oil it burns.  Oil consumption itself is not generally considered a fault for purposes of assessing reliability.

Sorry I hadn't made that clear.  Yes, please do assess reliability as narrowly as possible.  The issue with my car that I mentioned, for example, is specific for the 2005—2012 generation; the offending component began to be sourced from a different manufacturer partway through that date range, greatly reducing the risk of malfunction from model year 2008 and on or so; and, lastly, the failure tended to happen at around 90k to 110k miles, meaning a car with 160k miles might actually be a better bet than one with 80k miles.  This is the kind of knowledge that takes a lot of reading to find out ahead of time.

Another example of the model-versus-marque comment you made is the Honda Passport.  A 20-year old Honda might sound like a good value in a used car, but in fact the Passport was a re-branded Isuzu Rodeo and suffered from many more mechanical issues than other Honda models of the same timeframe.

One piece of advice I've also gone by (which may or may not be good advice) is to avoid buying a car that is the first model year of its generation.  The thinking is that they'll find out some of the issues in the first release year and then fix them for the next year.  So, for example, my current car's generation was launched in 2005, so I would avoid buying a 2005.

[jakeroot]

One piece of advice I've also gone by (which may or may not be good advice) is to avoid buying a car that is the first model year of its generation.  The thinking is that they'll find out some of the issues in the first release year and then fix them for the next year.  So, for example, my current car's generation was launched in 2005, so I would avoid buying a 2005.

This advice is something that Consumer Reports often repeats to readers as well. The first model year always has some bugs, so it might be wise to stay away from it. Last year's rankings placed Buick near the top of their reliability ratings, which they attributed to an aging lineup without much in the way of bugs.

My 2015 Golf was technically the first model year for the Golf mk7 in the US, however, it had been produced since 2012 in Europe (though at a different manufacturing facility).

[Throckmorton]

Volvo 240. Best car ever made.

[Max Rockatansky]

Volvo 240. Best car ever made.

One problem, they might be the most hideous looking cars ever made:

[Takumi]

Volvo 240. Best car ever made.

One problem, they might be the most hideous looking cars ever made:

The Mitsuoka Orochi says hi.

[Max Rockatansky]

Volvo 240. Best car ever made.

One problem, they might be the most hideous looking cars ever made:

The Mitsuoka Orochi says hi.

Has a literal barracuda thing going on there with the front facisa.