This is a nice 2007 Toyota Camry XLE. Even though it's a little beat up, it has over 180k miles. It's only like $6.6k grand. I don't have a car yet but i have my license, I would like to have this one as my first car!
(https://i.imgur.com/9XIhobX.jpg)
(https://i.imgur.com/0OBL51m.jpg)
(There's no exterior pictures but it's a silver car)
What do you think of this car? Is it a great first car even with that high mileage?
$6600 seems a little high for that many miles. Toyotas, so we're told, "go forever", but that's still a lot of miles.
Quote from: jakeroot on August 24, 2019, 12:27:16 AM
$6600 seems a little high for that many miles. Toyotas, so we're told, "go forever", but that's still a lot of miles.
It's also the top of the line trim with push start, v6 engine, and leather seats, so that's probably why too. If it was a base model and a four cylinder, it wouldn't be that expensive i'm sure.
V6 or not the asking price is way too high for the mileage. At 150k plus you need to get a low of a price as you can to account for maintenance items you won't anticipate.
On a side note, it just struck me that I probably qualify as old since a V8 is what I considered aspirational around the same age.
Quote from: mrhappy1261 on August 24, 2019, 12:31:29 AM
It's also the top of the line trim with push start, v6 engine, and leather seats, so that's probably why too. If it was a base model and a four cylinder, it wouldn't be that expensive i'm sure.
I'd pay big money for one of those 4-cylinder Camrys with a manual transmission. That body style was the last for the 5-speed.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on August 24, 2019, 12:47:44 AM
On a side note, it just struck me that I probably qualify as old since a V8 is what I considered aspirational around the same age.
Respectfully...can confirm. No desire for a V8 myself. Twin turbo V6? Hot mama!!
Blah. An appliance for people who hate to actually drive. X-(
$6,600 is too high for that Camry given the mileage. If it were something collectible that'd obviously be a different story. But the Camry is sort of the anti-collectible car. It, and the Toyota Prius, fall into the category of what Car and Driver once called "transportation appliances." They're reliable and utterly unexciting and are ideal for people who are not interested in a vehicle beyond having a reliable means to get from Point A to Point B–they don't care about things like "fun to drive" and styling and the like.
If the price were lower by about $4,000, and if a trusted mechanic checked out the car and gave it his OK, I'd say it might not be a terrible buy, but at 180,000 miles I'd be concerned that there's going to be some sort of maintenance that, although routine, is going to represent a significant expense in the near future. That one obviously doesn't have a clutch to replace, but I might be concerned about the power steering rack or the like unless a mechanic could tell me there was unlikely to be a problem.
Quote from: mrhappy1261 on August 24, 2019, 12:31:29 AMIt's also the top of the line trim with push start, V6 engine, and leather seats, so that's probably why too. If it was a base model and a four cylinder, it wouldn't be that expensive I'm sure.
I drive a fifth-generation Toyota Camry XLE V6 and those go for silly money in good condition, with $10,000 not being unheard of. This said, I'd double-check with KBB; you can get a spot check on price online for free. Though this is sixth generation, 180,000 is a lot of miles and thus a lot of uncertainty about maintenance, so I'm inclined to agree with others about $6,000 being too much. For this vintage of Camry, I don't like either the 2AZ-FE (four-cylinder: eventually starts burning oil) or the 2GR-FE (V6: has an external oil supply hose for the variable valve timing system that tends to break and run the engine dry of oil). I prefer the 1MZ-FE (older 3.0 L V6, VVT oil supply is all internal), but it does require timing belt replacements every 90,000 miles and for the Camry it was retired at the end of the fifth generation.
I'd advise not getting your heart set on this vehicle and being open to other possibilities.
As for the Camry being "appliance motoring"--pfui. There is something to be said for reliability.
The "Toyota=reliable" meme is outdated. Except for some Fiat products, virtually every car on the market in the US is reliable. Toyota still rides that wave but it is getting smaller every day as motorists realize that Toyota is nothing special. They make mediocre cars for those who hate to drive. I would stay far away from this car.
Quote from: bugo on August 24, 2019, 02:43:11 PM
The "Toyota=reliable" meme is outdated. Except for some Fiat products, virtually every car on the market in the US is reliable. Toyota still rides that wave but it is getting smaller every day as motorists realize that Toyota is nothing special. They make mediocre cars for those who hate to drive. I would stay far away from this car.
Well it's your opinion. I like them. Toyotas and Hondas are my favorite!
Nowhere did I criticize reliability. My wife and I currently have three Honda vehicles (Acuras) that have been extremely reliable. That's one reason why we bought them. The RSX, in particular, doesn't fall within the "transportation appliance" category by any means. But the point I was making had nothing to do with reliability and everything to do with the asking price the OP mentioned: $6,600 for a vehicle with 180,000 miles is simply a very high price for something that doesn't fall into what would be considered a "collectible" car. That is to say, we all know there are cars that became more valuable as they aged due to scarcity, styling, particular unique features, whatever. A Camry just isn't the sort of vehicle that normally falls into that category, that's all, and as I said before, at 180,000 miles even a reliable vehicle is likely to have a number of routine maintenance items coming up that will pose an expense. A timing belt, if the vehicle has one, is a great example of that sort of thing–it's a "wear item" that has to be replaced every so often, but on a lot of vehicles it's one of the more expensive "routine maintenance" items and it stings a bit when that expense hits (thankfully, it only hits every few years).
A couple of years ago, my brother sold his 2006 Civic to Carmax because it had 197,500 miles and it needed a clutch, brakes, and something else (I forget what) and he said he didn't think it made sense to spend that amount of money on a car with 197,500 miles when our father had offered to give him a 2004 Acura TSX my parents no longer needed. That's the sort of situation that I think of when I see "180,000 miles" and "$6,600"–what other costs are going to hit after that purchase price?
(I've been thinking of selling my RX-7, but I doubt I'd be inclined to sell it to someone 17 years old because I don't think it's the right car. Someone that age should have something newer, less esoteric, and more reliable.)
$6600 could get you a S197 Mustang GT with high miles. Might as well be Joe Cool...LOL!
Watch the Craigslist ads for areas you would drive to in order to buy a vehicle. Do this daily. Once you know the market for those areas, you will recognize a bargain when you see it as well as knowing when a vehicle is overpriced. For the best price, save your shekels until December. Used car sales slow down then. People want money for Xmas. Cash is king. Your patience will likely be rewarded.
Good luck finding the rig you want. By the way, did you make it to Raising Cane's?
Rick
Quote from: J N Winkler on August 24, 2019, 12:56:16 PM
As for the Camry being "appliance motoring"--pfui. There is something to be said for reliability.
I think this stereotype has been further cemented over the last ten years, as other automakers (such as BMW or Audi) have caught up in terms of reliability, but which also produce cars that are fun to drive. It's remarkable to me that Toyota simply cannot make their cheap cars fun. The Corolla hatch is the closest I've seen them get, but it still doesn't quite line up to my diesel Golf. Four years later.
Toyota is also digging themselves a hole with their warranties. 3/36?? I don't get it. My sister opted for a Jetta for her most recent car purchase, for two reasons: overall reliability is perfectly acceptable (to insist Toyota is the only reliable option is false), and it offered a bumper-to-bumper warranty twice that of the Corolla. For about $3k less. Total no brainer.
I'm looking at the Autolist app and I applied filters to just about match the specs of this car (XLE, V6, 7 grand, 175k mileage, etc; as close as I could with the given filters) and I am finding vehicles around the same price point but the mileage is quite a bit less on almost all of them. I'm looking at an average of 140-150 thousand miles per car.
I did not look at a CARFAX on any of them, but CARFAX reports can have a large impact on the price of a car as it can tell buyers how reliable their car can be given information like crashes and maintenance.
For my first car this is what dad is thinking about getting me. It's somewhere between 2008 and 2012 and no higher than 125k miles. Corolla is too small, so I would do Camry or Accord.
I will have pics when I get the car.
i'm sure 6 cylinders are FUN to drive!!
Quote from: mrhappy1261 on August 24, 2019, 06:23:20 PM
For my first car this is what dad is thinking about getting me. It's somewhere between 2008 and 2012 and no higher than 125k miles. Corolla is too small, so I would do Camry or Accord.
I will have pics when I get the car.
i'm sure 6 cylinders are FUN to drive!!
Just out curiosity what makes a Corolla too small? My wife put 210,000 on her 09 Corolla she bought from new. That thing is economical as all hell.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on August 24, 2019, 12:47:44 AM
V6 or not the asking price is way too high for the mileage. At 150k plus you need to get a low of a price as you can to account for maintenance items you won't anticipate.
On a side note, it just struck me that I probably qualify as old since a V8 is what I considered aspirational around the same age.
I suppose that is another example showing how car manufacturers are making their engines smaller left and right. I'm quite young and I have noticed in my lifetime there have been many cars that have been losing their V8/V6 options, in favor for four cylinders. I found an audi q7 with a 4.5L or so engine but now that same car in 2019 has a 3.0 Liter engine, and Acura has recently cut the V6 in their RDX (but HP numbers didn't change much at all). At least they are more efficient, I guess.
Quote from: ozarkman417 on August 24, 2019, 06:31:44 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on August 24, 2019, 12:47:44 AM
V6 or not the asking price is way too high for the mileage. At 150k plus you need to get a low of a price as you can to account for maintenance items you won't anticipate.
On a side note, it just struck me that I probably qualify as old since a V8 is what I considered aspirational around the same age.
I suppose that is another example showing how car manufacturers are making their engines smaller left and right. I'm quite young and I have noticed in my lifetime there have been many cars that have been losing their V8/V6 options, in favor for four cylinders. I found an audi q7 with a 4.5L or so engine but now that same car in 2019 has a 3.0 Liter engine, and Acura has recently cut the V6 in their RDX (but HP numbers didn't change much at all). At least they are more efficient, I guess.
That's the thing, a lot of the change is being driven by efficiency concerns. Don't forget CAFE laws are only mandating increases in Corporate Fuel economy over time. At minimum unlike the Malaise Era the engineering technology is advancing so rapidly that cars still preform well with four and six cylinder variants. 300HP just two decades ago was a lot of out a V8, now we have some high end four bangers hitting that mark.
Just use Kelly blue book website to determine the value of a car. Also, shop around on one of the many car sales websites and you will see that the price is wayyy too high. People are always trying to take advantage of young people, but thankfully you can prevent this by using the internet. Don't be lazy. Shop around and do your research.
I have a 2004 Camry SE with 130,000 miles. It wasn't until this year that I had to start replacing parts. Alternator and engine mount.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on August 24, 2019, 06:26:17 PM
Quote from: mrhappy1261 on August 24, 2019, 06:23:20 PM
For my first car this is what dad is thinking about getting me. It's somewhere between 2008 and 2012 and no higher than 125k miles. Corolla is too small, so I would do Camry or Accord.
I will have pics when I get the car.
i'm sure 6 cylinders are FUN to drive!!
Just out curiosity what makes a Corolla too small? My wife put 210,000 on her 09 Corolla she bought from new. That thing is economical as all hell.
I'm 6' 1'' or 6' 2''.
Quote from: mrhappy1261 on August 24, 2019, 06:54:56 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on August 24, 2019, 06:26:17 PM
Quote from: mrhappy1261 on August 24, 2019, 06:23:20 PM
For my first car this is what dad is thinking about getting me. It's somewhere between 2008 and 2012 and no higher than 125k miles. Corolla is too small, so I would do Camry or Accord.
I will have pics when I get the car.
i'm sure 6 cylinders are FUN to drive!!
Just out curiosity what makes a Corolla too small? My wife put 210,000 on her 09 Corolla she bought from new. That thing is economical as all hell.
I'm 6' 1'' or 6' 2''.
I'm 6'1 myself and I drove a Chevy Sonic in addition to a Ford Fiesta through the last 7 years as daily drivers. That's a myth a lot of people try to perpetuate that sub-compact cars can't be operated comfortably by tall people.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on August 24, 2019, 06:56:49 PM
Quote from: mrhappy1261 on August 24, 2019, 06:54:56 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on August 24, 2019, 06:26:17 PM
Quote from: mrhappy1261 on August 24, 2019, 06:23:20 PM
For my first car this is what dad is thinking about getting me. It's somewhere between 2008 and 2012 and no higher than 125k miles. Corolla is too small, so I would do Camry or Accord.
I will have pics when I get the car.
i'm sure 6 cylinders are FUN to drive!!
Just out curiosity what makes a Corolla too small? My wife put 210,000 on her 09 Corolla she bought from new. That thing is economical as all hell.
I'm 6' 1'' or 6' 2''.
I'm 6'1 myself and I drove a Chevy Sonic in addition to a Ford Fiesta through the last 7 years as daily drivers. That's a myth a lot of people try to perpetuate that sub-compact cars can't be operated comfortably by tall people.
How about sitting in the back seat? If you have 3 tall people in the car, you will be uncomfortable. Unless you are by yourself
I tried to make an idea about a Toyota Avalon for me but everyone thinks that car is too big for me. Lol and the older design of them, I don't really like the ones from 2005-2010.
Quote from: mrhappy1261 on August 24, 2019, 07:00:07 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on August 24, 2019, 06:56:49 PM
I'm 6'1 myself and I drove a Chevy Sonic in addition to a Ford Fiesta through the last 7 years as daily drivers. That's a myth a lot of people try to perpetuate that sub-compact cars can't be operated comfortably by tall people.
How about sitting in the back seat? If you have 3 tall people in the car, you will be uncomfortable. Unless you are by yourself
Those small hatchbacks usually have tall roofs. Better for tall people than a similar sedan.
Have you considered something like a Toyota Matrix?
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on August 24, 2019, 06:36:18 PMThat's the thing, a lot of the change is being driven by efficiency concerns. Don't forget CAFE laws are only mandating increases in Corporate Fuel economy over time. At minimum unlike the Malaise Era the engineering technology is advancing so rapidly that cars still preform well with four and six cylinder variants. 300HP just two decades ago was a lot of out a V8, now we have some high end four bangers hitting that mark.
The rapidly evolving tech concerns me. I'd sooner have a last-generation Lexus LS with a normally-aspirated V8 than a current-generation one with the twin-turbo V6. Turbos are very hard on motor oil, and GDI without a conventional (indirect) FI component is a recipe for intake valve clogging. It also bugs me that although the problem of how to build engines with effectively zero oil consumption has been solved since the 1920's, the automakers still think it is optional to design to that target.
I am speaking of this vehicle as one from which reliability can be expected because it is a Toyota Camry, not because it is a Toyota; the company does make some unreliable models. And in terms of the V6, fifth generation is better than sixth generation.
Quote from: jakeroot on August 24, 2019, 07:03:04 PM
Quote from: mrhappy1261 on August 24, 2019, 07:00:07 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on August 24, 2019, 06:56:49 PM
I'm 6'1 myself and I drove a Chevy Sonic in addition to a Ford Fiesta through the last 7 years as daily drivers. That's a myth a lot of people try to perpetuate that sub-compact cars can't be operated comfortably by tall people.
How about sitting in the back seat? If you have 3 tall people in the car, you will be uncomfortable. Unless you are by yourself
Those small hatchbacks usually have tall roofs. Better for tall people than a similar sedan.
Have you considered something like a Toyota Matrix?
Nope, I don't like hatchbacks that much. I'm a sedan and suv person. I also like minivans. Although I think my brother would get one if he has interest in them but i don't know. He has a 2011 Toyota Corolla that I driven today that is okay, but a little too small.
Quote from: J N Winkler on August 24, 2019, 07:11:35 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on August 24, 2019, 06:36:18 PMThat's the thing, a lot of the change is being driven by efficiency concerns. Don't forget CAFE laws are only mandating increases in Corporate Fuel economy over time. At minimum unlike the Malaise Era the engineering technology is advancing so rapidly that cars still preform well with four and six cylinder variants. 300HP just two decades ago was a lot of out a V8, now we have some high end four bangers hitting that mark.
And in terms of the V6, fifth generation is better than sixth generation.
Talking about 2002-2006 is better than 2007-2011?
Quote from: mrhappy1261 on August 24, 2019, 07:11:44 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on August 24, 2019, 07:03:04 PM
Quote from: mrhappy1261 on August 24, 2019, 07:00:07 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on August 24, 2019, 06:56:49 PM
I'm 6'1 myself and I drove a Chevy Sonic in addition to a Ford Fiesta through the last 7 years as daily drivers. That's a myth a lot of people try to perpetuate that sub-compact cars can't be operated comfortably by tall people.
How about sitting in the back seat? If you have 3 tall people in the car, you will be uncomfortable. Unless you are by yourself
Those small hatchbacks usually have tall roofs. Better for tall people than a similar sedan.
Have you considered something like a Toyota Matrix?
Nope, I don't like hatchbacks that much. I'm a sedan and suv person. I also like minivans. Although I think my brother would get one if he has interest in them but i don't know. He has a 2011 Toyota Corolla that I driven today that is okay, but a little too small.
To answer your question I moved across the country twice; once in the Sonic and once in the Fiesta. I was carrying 700lbs of cargo which included myself and dog. Both trips were over 2,000 miles and was comfortable. So yes, tall passengers were a breeze on local trips. I wouldn't want to be in that back seat in either car on a long trip but my priority wasn't the comfort of passengers, just my own economy.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on August 24, 2019, 07:15:35 PM
Quote from: mrhappy1261 on August 24, 2019, 07:11:44 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on August 24, 2019, 07:03:04 PM
Quote from: mrhappy1261 on August 24, 2019, 07:00:07 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on August 24, 2019, 06:56:49 PM
I'm 6'1 myself and I drove a Chevy Sonic in addition to a Ford Fiesta through the last 7 years as daily drivers. That's a myth a lot of people try to perpetuate that sub-compact cars can't be operated comfortably by tall people.
How about sitting in the back seat? If you have 3 tall people in the car, you will be uncomfortable. Unless you are by yourself
Those small hatchbacks usually have tall roofs. Better for tall people than a similar sedan.
Have you considered something like a Toyota Matrix?
Nope, I don't like hatchbacks that much. I'm a sedan and suv person. I also like minivans. Although I think my brother would get one if he has interest in them but i don't know. He has a 2011 Toyota Corolla that I driven today that is okay, but a little too small.
To answer your question I moved across the country twice; once in the Sonic and once in the Fiesta. I was carrying 700lbs of cargo which included myself and dog. Both trips were over 2,000 miles and was comfortable. So yes, tall passengers were a breeze on local trips. I wouldn't want to be in that back seat in either car on a long trip but my priority wasn't the comfort of passengers, just my own economy.
It was probably just you and your dog and the luggage. I'm sure you didn't have a full house in the car.
Quote from: mrhappy1261 on August 24, 2019, 07:19:04 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on August 24, 2019, 07:15:35 PM
Quote from: mrhappy1261 on August 24, 2019, 07:11:44 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on August 24, 2019, 07:03:04 PM
Quote from: mrhappy1261 on August 24, 2019, 07:00:07 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on August 24, 2019, 06:56:49 PM
I'm 6'1 myself and I drove a Chevy Sonic in addition to a Ford Fiesta through the last 7 years as daily drivers. That's a myth a lot of people try to perpetuate that sub-compact cars can't be operated comfortably by tall people.
How about sitting in the back seat? If you have 3 tall people in the car, you will be uncomfortable. Unless you are by yourself
Those small hatchbacks usually have tall roofs. Better for tall people than a similar sedan.
Have you considered something like a Toyota Matrix?
Nope, I don't like hatchbacks that much. I'm a sedan and suv person. I also like minivans. Although I think my brother would get one if he has interest in them but i don't know. He has a 2011 Toyota Corolla that I driven today that is okay, but a little too small.
To answer your question I moved across the country twice; once in the Sonic and once in the Fiesta. I was carrying 700lbs of cargo which included myself and dog. Both trips were over 2,000 miles and was comfortable. So yes, tall passengers were a breeze on local trips. I wouldn't want to be in that back seat in either car on a long trip but my priority wasn't the comfort of passengers, just my own economy.
It was probably just you and your dog and the luggage. I'm sure you didn't have a full house in the car.
700lbs of cargo amounted to four storage box totes on one trip, three on another and a full trunk on both trips. I actually had to make sure I wasn't exceeding the cargo capacity both times, both cars were rated for about 800-850lbs. Not a full house but pretty much way more than anyone would normally expect to see in cars that small. Unloading both those cars was a chore every night at the hotels to be sure. The dog (about 60lbs) rode captains chair next to me both trips. Point I'm trying to make is that you can load a lot in a small car and not exceed the cargo capacity. It sounds like you're aiming your expectations for a first car beyond what your practical needs are.
Quote from: mrhappy1261 on August 24, 2019, 07:00:07 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on August 24, 2019, 06:56:49 PM
Quote from: mrhappy1261 on August 24, 2019, 06:54:56 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on August 24, 2019, 06:26:17 PM
Quote from: mrhappy1261 on August 24, 2019, 06:23:20 PM
For my first car this is what dad is thinking about getting me. It's somewhere between 2008 and 2012 and no higher than 125k miles. Corolla is too small, so I would do Camry or Accord.
I will have pics when I get the car.
i'm sure 6 cylinders are FUN to drive!!
Just out curiosity what makes a Corolla too small? My wife put 210,000 on her 09 Corolla she bought from new. That thing is economical as all hell.
I'm 6' 1'' or 6' 2''.
I'm 6'1 myself and I drove a Chevy Sonic in addition to a Ford Fiesta through the last 7 years as daily drivers. That's a myth a lot of people try to perpetuate that sub-compact cars can't be operated comfortably by tall people.
How about sitting in the back seat? If you have 3 tall people in the car, you will be uncomfortable. Unless you are by yourself
Are you planning on carrying people in the back of your car that often? For me I have to constantly pick up my friends to do any sort of event with them, and I'm also in high school. I have to pick up at least one of them quite frequently, maybe every 2-3 weeks. The tallest of my friends is 6' 4".
Quote from: ozarkman417 on August 24, 2019, 07:36:26 PM
Quote from: mrhappy1261 on August 24, 2019, 07:00:07 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on August 24, 2019, 06:56:49 PM
Quote from: mrhappy1261 on August 24, 2019, 06:54:56 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on August 24, 2019, 06:26:17 PM
Quote from: mrhappy1261 on August 24, 2019, 06:23:20 PM
For my first car this is what dad is thinking about getting me. It's somewhere between 2008 and 2012 and no higher than 125k miles. Corolla is too small, so I would do Camry or Accord.
I will have pics when I get the car.
i'm sure 6 cylinders are FUN to drive!!
Just out curiosity what makes a Corolla too small? My wife put 210,000 on her 09 Corolla she bought from new. That thing is economical as all hell.
I'm 6' 1'' or 6' 2''.
I'm 6'1 myself and I drove a Chevy Sonic in addition to a Ford Fiesta through the last 7 years as daily drivers. That's a myth a lot of people try to perpetuate that sub-compact cars can't be operated comfortably by tall people.
How about sitting in the back seat? If you have 3 tall people in the car, you will be uncomfortable. Unless you are by yourself
Are you planning on carrying people in the back of your car that often? For me I have to constantly pick up my friends to do any sort of event with them, and I'm also in high school. I have to pick up at least one of them quite frequently, maybe every 2-3 weeks. The tallest of my friends is 6' 4".
Yes, my wife's family is quite numerous and often finds themselves back there. But I stand by the advice, prioritize your needs over what your friends want out of a car or even what you want. At this point in the game a car is much of a "need" thing than a list of options of creature comforts you want. A good sub-compact at 150,000 miles would cost you less than half of what that tarted out Camry would.
I should note that my latest daily driver is a 2019 Impreza. Not quite sub-compact but it is the next class up with a compact. Finding AWD variants in entry level cars is still somewhat surprisingly rare in these days.
Quote from: J N Winkler on August 24, 2019, 07:11:35 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on August 24, 2019, 06:36:18 PMThat's the thing, a lot of the change is being driven by efficiency concerns. Don't forget CAFE laws are only mandating increases in Corporate Fuel economy over time. At minimum unlike the Malaise Era the engineering technology is advancing so rapidly that cars still preform well with four and six cylinder variants. 300HP just two decades ago was a lot of out a V8, now we have some high end four bangers hitting that mark.
The rapidly evolving tech concerns me. I'd sooner have a last-generation Lexus LS with a normally-aspirated V8 than a current-generation one with the twin-turbo V6. Turbos are very hard on motor oil, and GDI without a conventional (indirect) FI component is a recipe for intake valve clogging. It also bugs me that although the problem of how to build engines with effectively zero oil consumption has been solved since the 1920's, the automakers still think it is optional to design to that target.
I'm still finding myself questioning the reliability of turbo charged and super charged engines. My 2014 Sonic was a 1.4L Turbo which had problems handling the 87 octane it was designed for. I have never had so many check engines lights come on from knocking in a single car, I was using 89 octane for elevations over 3,000 feet by the end.
Quote from: jakeroot on August 24, 2019, 02:09:15 AM
Quote from: mrhappy1261 on August 24, 2019, 12:31:29 AM
It's also the top of the line trim with push start, v6 engine, and leather seats, so that's probably why too. If it was a base model and a four cylinder, it wouldn't be that expensive i'm sure.
I'd pay big money for one of those 4-cylinder Camrys with a manual transmission. That body style was the last for the 5-speed.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on August 24, 2019, 12:47:44 AM
On a side note, it just struck me that I probably qualify as old since a V8 is what I considered aspirational around the same age.
Respectfully...can confirm. No desire for a V8 myself. Twin turbo V6? Hot mama!!
I don't know, the 392CI/6.4L Hemi on a day is a lot of fun with all that displacement driven torque. The best part is no turbo lag.
Quote from: ozarkman417 on August 24, 2019, 07:36:26 PM
Quote from: mrhappy1261 on August 24, 2019, 07:00:07 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on August 24, 2019, 06:56:49 PM
Quote from: mrhappy1261 on August 24, 2019, 06:54:56 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on August 24, 2019, 06:26:17 PM
Quote from: mrhappy1261 on August 24, 2019, 06:23:20 PM
For my first car this is what dad is thinking about getting me. It's somewhere between 2008 and 2012 and no higher than 125k miles. Corolla is too small, so I would do Camry or Accord.
I will have pics when I get the car.
i'm sure 6 cylinders are FUN to drive!!
Just out curiosity what makes a Corolla too small? My wife put 210,000 on her 09 Corolla she bought from new. That thing is economical as all hell.
I'm 6' 1'' or 6' 2''.
I'm 6'1 myself and I drove a Chevy Sonic in addition to a Ford Fiesta through the last 7 years as daily drivers. That's a myth a lot of people try to perpetuate that sub-compact cars can't be operated comfortably by tall people.
How about sitting in the back seat? If you have 3 tall people in the car, you will be uncomfortable. Unless you are by yourself
Are you planning on carrying people in the back of your car that often? For me I have to constantly pick up my friends to do any sort of event with them, and I'm also in high school. I have to pick up at least one of them quite frequently, maybe every 2-3 weeks. The tallest of my friends is 6' 4".
Yeah, I have a mentor that works with me and sometimes he might need me to bring my car to carry some of his folks. I say they need room so they are not cramped!
Quote from: mrhappy1261 on August 24, 2019, 08:27:17 PM
Quote from: ozarkman417 on August 24, 2019, 07:36:26 PM
Quote from: mrhappy1261 on August 24, 2019, 07:00:07 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on August 24, 2019, 06:56:49 PM
Quote from: mrhappy1261 on August 24, 2019, 06:54:56 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on August 24, 2019, 06:26:17 PM
Quote from: mrhappy1261 on August 24, 2019, 06:23:20 PM
For my first car this is what dad is thinking about getting me. It's somewhere between 2008 and 2012 and no higher than 125k miles. Corolla is too small, so I would do Camry or Accord.
I will have pics when I get the car.
i'm sure 6 cylinders are FUN to drive!!
Just out curiosity what makes a Corolla too small? My wife put 210,000 on her 09 Corolla she bought from new. That thing is economical as all hell.
I'm 6' 1'' or 6' 2''.
I'm 6'1 myself and I drove a Chevy Sonic in addition to a Ford Fiesta through the last 7 years as daily drivers. That's a myth a lot of people try to perpetuate that sub-compact cars can't be operated comfortably by tall people.
How about sitting in the back seat? If you have 3 tall people in the car, you will be uncomfortable. Unless you are by yourself
Are you planning on carrying people in the back of your car that often? For me I have to constantly pick up my friends to do any sort of event with them, and I'm also in high school. I have to pick up at least one of them quite frequently, maybe every 2-3 weeks. The tallest of my friends is 6' 4".
Yeah, I have a mentor that works with me and sometimes he might need me to bring my car to carry some of his folks. I say they need room so they are not cramped!
Doesn't sound like much of a mentor if they need to bum rides off you. Hopefully you'll get gas money for that.
Quote from: mrhappy1261 on August 24, 2019, 06:54:56 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on August 24, 2019, 06:26:17 PM
Quote from: mrhappy1261 on August 24, 2019, 06:23:20 PM
For my first car this is what dad is thinking about getting me. It's somewhere between 2008 and 2012 and no higher than 125k miles. Corolla is too small, so I would do Camry or Accord.
I will have pics when I get the car.
i'm sure 6 cylinders are FUN to drive!!
Just out curiosity what makes a Corolla too small? My wife put 210,000 on her 09 Corolla she bought from new. That thing is economical as all hell.
I'm 6' 1'' or 6' 2''.
That's about my height. I learned how to drive in my dad's 1988 Toyota Camry with a stickshift. My mom had a 1992 Toyota Camry station wagon with an automatic, which I also drove. My dad then traded his in for a 1997 Toyota Camry with a stickshift, which I also drove extensively. When I went off to college, I had a 1995 Toyota Corolla with a stickshift. Several years later, I owned a 1987 Toyota Corolla hatchback with a stickshift. In all of those cars, I never had any issues with headroom. More importantly, my legs were fully extended without even having the seat quite all the way back. Summary: at least from 1987 to 1997, none of the five Corollas or Camrys gave this tall guy any problems. In fact, I had more legroom in those cars than in my current seven-passenger SUV. Since that time, Corollas have only gotten bigger.
tl;dr / Don't worry about a Corolla being too small. I highly doubt it would be.
2010 Toyota Camry
Front legroom = 41.7 inches
Rear legroom = 38.3 inches
2010 Toyota Corolla
Front legroom = 41.7 inches
Rear legroom = 36.3 inches
By way of comparison, here is my current vehicle, in which I can comfortably sit in the back seat:
2006 Nissan Pathfinder SE
Front legroom = 42.4 inches
Rear legroom = 34.2 inches
As you can see, the Corolla has more rear legroom in the back seat than my seven-passenger SUV. And as I said, I've sat in the back seat with no problem.
Quote from: kphoger on August 24, 2019, 08:33:45 PM
2010 Toyota Camry
Front legroom = 41.7 inches
Rear legroom = 38.3 inches
2010 Toyota Corolla
Front legroom = 41.7 inches
Rear legroom = 36.3 inches
By way of comparison, here is my current vehicle, in which I can comfortably sit in the back seat:
2006 Nissan Pathfinder SE
Front legroom = 42.4 inches
Rear legroom = 34.2 inches
As you can see, the Corolla has more rear legroom in the back seat than my seven-passenger SUV. And as I said, I've sat in the back seat with no problem.
So, if I were to get a car, the corolla is better than camry?
Look at headroom too. I'm cramped. especially in a Versa.
2010 Toyota Camry
Front headroom = 39 inches
Rear headroom = 38 inches
2010 Toyota Corolla
Front headroom = 39 inches
Rear headroom = 37 inches
2010 Nissan Versa hatchback
Front headroom = 41 inches
Rear headroom = 38 inches
2010 Toyota Avalon
Front leg room = 41.3 inches
Rear leg room = 40.9 inches
Front head room = 38.9 inches
Rear head room = 37.5 inches
So the Avalon is not as roomy in the back when comparing it to the headroom. Interesting. Now let's bring in the Honda Accord!
2010 Honda Accord
Front leg room = 42.5 inches
Rear leg room = 37.2 inches
Front head room = 39 inches
Rear head room = 37 inches
The Accord is about the same as the Camry I think. But apparently it's more cramped. I guess a bigger car just has more stuff to it that's standard and kinda unnecessary for a first car. I might end up getting a compact car then.
Quote from: J N Winkler on August 24, 2019, 07:11:35 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on August 24, 2019, 06:36:18 PMThat's the thing, a lot of the change is being driven by efficiency concerns. Don't forget CAFE laws are only mandating increases in Corporate Fuel economy over time. At minimum unlike the Malaise Era the engineering technology is advancing so rapidly that cars still preform well with four and six cylinder variants. 300HP just two decades ago was a lot of out a V8, now we have some high end four bangers hitting that mark.
The rapidly evolving tech concerns me. I'd sooner have a last-generation Lexus LS with a normally-aspirated V8 than a current-generation one with the twin-turbo V6. Turbos are very hard on motor oil, and GDI without a conventional (indirect) FI component is a recipe for intake valve clogging. It also bugs me that although the problem of how to build engines with effectively zero oil consumption has been solved since the 1920's, the automakers still think it is optional to design to that target.
I am speaking of this vehicle as one from which reliability can be expected because it is a Toyota Camry, not because it is a Toyota; the company does make some unreliable models. And in terms of the V6, fifth generation is better than sixth generation.
Turbo engines are the only option for many popular cars in 2019, so now is the time to buy used non-turbos, I guess. I suppose it's whatever it takes to make these vehicles more "efficient".
SM-G965U
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on August 24, 2019, 08:06:25 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on August 24, 2019, 02:09:15 AM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on August 24, 2019, 12:47:44 AM
On a side note, it just struck me that I probably qualify as old since a V8 is what I considered aspirational around the same age.
Respectfully...can confirm. No desire for a V8 myself. Twin turbo V6? Hot mama!!
I don't know, the 392CI/6.4L Hemi on a day is a lot of fun with all that displacement driven torque. The best part is no turbo lag.
No argument from me. It just so happens that I'm a fan of the noises that turbos make. Plus, newer automatic gearboxes seem to do a fantastic job at handling turbo engines. I just saw a review of the new Audi RS5 with its 2.9TT V6, and the video suggested that downshifts (and upshifts) were virtually immediate. It's a trend that I've been noticing with others cars as well. I love my stick shift, and don't want to give it up any time soon, but I have to give credit where it's due.
Quote from: ozarkman417 on August 25, 2019, 12:50:42 AM
Turbo engines are the only option for many popular cars in 2019, so now is the time to buy used non-turbos, I guess.
I feel like many of the "bugs" associated with turbos have been worked out as well. Cars are still getting more reliable, and they increasingly are (as you say) available only as turbos.
Backup cameras, alloy wheels, are pretty standard nowadays also. Even dual climate control in some models. well you have to go to the X trims, but it's standard. If you are looking at the accord, then it's standard. They have a review on the website saying why the accord beats the camry. It's true but it doesn't mean the accord is better than the camry. I say the 2018 camry is more of a young person car compared to the accord which is more of an old person car.
Quote from: mrhappy1261 on August 25, 2019, 01:57:30 AM
I say the 2018 camry is more of a young person car compared to the accord which is more of an old person car.
I dunno about that. Most enthusiasts would associate the Accord with younger buyers, on account of the continued availability of the manual transmission and generally more sporty driving dynamics.
Quote from: jakeroot on August 25, 2019, 02:02:45 AM
Quote from: mrhappy1261 on August 25, 2019, 01:57:30 AM
I say the 2018 camry is more of a young person car compared to the accord which is more of an old person car.
I dunno about that. Most enthusiasts would associate the Accord with younger buyers, on account of the continued availability of the manual transmission and generally more sporty driving dynamics.
Well looking at the camry design (which most or all toyotas are built like that nowadays), it looks more of a younger buyers car. I can see the XSE being a sporty trim. But when looking at the Accord from 2017 to 2018, it doesn't really look that different because it doesn't have a red gauge cluster, but it's more fun. Maybe old people would get some chevy or buick.
People are also loving the new 2019 avalon
I would probably say at this point almost no sedan out there would be considered "youthful." Most mid-size sedans are stuck in their gradually declining family/I don't like driving oriented dynamic that for some reason automakers won't let them evolve out of. There is a lot to be said about how Cross-Overs seem to have a wide open canvas for design elements in features but the sedan market (particularly mid-size) seems to be stuck in what it has been since the 1980s.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on August 25, 2019, 10:59:20 AM
I would probably say at this point almost no sedan out there would be considered "youthful." Most mid-size sedans are stuck in their gradually declining family/I don't like driving oriented dynamic that for some reason automakers won't let them evolve out of. There is a lot to be said about how Cross-Overs seem to have a wide open canvas for design elements in features but the sedan market (particularly mid-size) seems to be stuck in what it has been since the 1980s.
I'm not a fan of the crossover segment, but I'll be damned if I'm going to buy a car that doesn't have a squared-off rear-end. Hatch for life. It's a big reason why I'm part of the 5% who still prefer wagons.
Quote from: jakeroot on August 25, 2019, 03:55:44 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on August 25, 2019, 10:59:20 AM
I would probably say at this point almost no sedan out there would be considered "youthful." Most mid-size sedans are stuck in their gradually declining family/I don't like driving oriented dynamic that for some reason automakers won't let them evolve out of. There is a lot to be said about how Cross-Overs seem to have a wide open canvas for design elements in features but the sedan market (particularly mid-size) seems to be stuck in what it has been since the 1980s.
I'm not a fan of the crossover segment, but I'll be damned if I'm going to buy a car that doesn't have a squared-off rear-end. Hatch for life. It's a big reason why I'm part of the 5% who still prefer wagons.
To me the Crossover segment is just a melding of the station wagons and mini-vans of old. They certainly aren't really many true body-on-frame SUVs floating around either. To me the crossovers just seem kind of dull and unnecessarily large, I'd rather have a conventional sedan or maybe a hatch back if I just need something to get around. Considering how well my Impreza just did on over 80 miles of Forest Service Roads I would say it was plenty capable. I would gotten the hatch had one been available in the base model.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on August 25, 2019, 04:08:07 PM
They certainly aren't really many true body-on-frame SUVs floating around either.
Mine is! The Nissan Pathfinder was body-on-frame until MY 2013.
Quote from: kphoger on August 25, 2019, 04:17:20 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on August 25, 2019, 04:08:07 PM
They certainly aren't really many true body-on-frame SUVs floating around either.
Mine is! The Nissan Pathfinder was body-on-frame until MY 2013.
I used to have a 97 Silverado with a 4x4 package. In retrospect that is the vehicle I could use he most now out of any I've ever gotten rid of. There is only so much you can do off road in a Uni-Body.
The only Camry I'd buy would be a '99 V6 with a 5-speed.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on August 25, 2019, 04:08:07 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on August 25, 2019, 03:55:44 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on August 25, 2019, 10:59:20 AM
I would probably say at this point almost no sedan out there would be considered "youthful." Most mid-size sedans are stuck in their gradually declining family/I don't like driving oriented dynamic that for some reason automakers won't let them evolve out of. There is a lot to be said about how Cross-Overs seem to have a wide open canvas for design elements in features but the sedan market (particularly mid-size) seems to be stuck in what it has been since the 1980s.
I'm not a fan of the crossover segment, but I'll be damned if I'm going to buy a car that doesn't have a squared-off rear-end. Hatch for life. It's a big reason why I'm part of the 5% who still prefer wagons.
To me the Crossover segment is just a melding of the station wagons and mini-vans of old. They certainly aren't really many true body-on-frame SUVs floating around either. To me the crossovers just seem kind of dull and unnecessarily large, I'd rather have a conventional sedan or maybe a hatch back if I just need something to get around. Considering how well my Impreza just did on over 80 miles of Forest Service Roads I would say it was plenty capable. I would gotten the hatch had one been available in the base model.
My main gripe with the crossover is that it just doesn't do anything particularly well. Most simply can't tow that much (Durango being the best of the bunch for that) compared to a body-on-frame SUV, can't really haul that much compared to minivans, and get worse fuel economy
and are far less fun to drive than an equivalent sedan or wagon (with which they usually share components). The only true advantage seems to be that it can carry a bit more compared to wagons (slightly taller cabin). Another "advantage" is the higher ride height, but I personally consider that a safety issue (higher center of balance* is more likely to induce a roll-over in an emergency maneuver).
* There are some crossovers with a low center of balance that are pretty wicked: Grand Cherokee Trackhawk, Tesla Model X, Alfa Romeo Stelvio, Porsche Cayenne. These are the few crossovers I would consider owning.
Quote from: jakeroot on August 25, 2019, 06:48:07 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on August 25, 2019, 04:08:07 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on August 25, 2019, 03:55:44 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on August 25, 2019, 10:59:20 AM
I would probably say at this point almost no sedan out there would be considered "youthful." Most mid-size sedans are stuck in their gradually declining family/I don't like driving oriented dynamic that for some reason automakers won't let them evolve out of. There is a lot to be said about how Cross-Overs seem to have a wide open canvas for design elements in features but the sedan market (particularly mid-size) seems to be stuck in what it has been since the 1980s.
I'm not a fan of the crossover segment, but I'll be damned if I'm going to buy a car that doesn't have a squared-off rear-end. Hatch for life. It's a big reason why I'm part of the 5% who still prefer wagons.
To me the Crossover segment is just a melding of the station wagons and mini-vans of old. They certainly aren't really many true body-on-frame SUVs floating around either. To me the crossovers just seem kind of dull and unnecessarily large, I'd rather have a conventional sedan or maybe a hatch back if I just need something to get around. Considering how well my Impreza just did on over 80 miles of Forest Service Roads I would say it was plenty capable. I would gotten the hatch had one been available in the base model.
My main gripe with the crossover is that it just doesn't do anything particularly well. Most simply can't tow that much (Durango being the best of the bunch for that) compared to a body-on-frame SUV, can't really haul that much compared to minivans, and get worse fuel economy and are far less fun to drive than an equivalent sedan or wagon (with which they usually share components). The only true advantage seems to be that it can carry a bit more compared to wagons (slightly taller cabin). Another "advantage" is the higher ride height, but I personally consider that a safety issue (higher center of balance* is more likely to induce a roll-over in an emergency maneuver).
* There are some crossovers with a low center of balance that are pretty wicked: Grand Cherokee Trackhawk, Tesla Model X, Alfa Romeo Stelvio, Porsche Cayenne. These are the few crossovers I would consider owning.
My wife had a 2018 Forester and I have a 2019 Impreza. In the handling department I'm easily able to smoke her CUV on any curvy mountain road. I'm finding that I have to take most curves at 5 MPH less in the Forester. I got her handily beat by 3-4 MPG in economy. Cargo space and the 2.5 flat four soundly beat my car with the kinda of weak 2.0. Off road capability in my opinion is kind of a wash. She isn't clearing any large dips in that Forester just like I wouldn't in the Impreza but both did well on the primitive Sierra Forest Road 6S40. Her deal is that she likes the high riding height and more cargo room for her junk all her nieces carry around. Personally I much rather have the better handling vehicle unless there was something like outright top not off-road capability. I'm probably off of paved highways more than 95-99% of drivers and I can make due with a sedan easily. Even that Sonic would make through most dirt or gravel roads albeit with a bumpy ride.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on August 25, 2019, 07:17:34 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on August 25, 2019, 06:48:07 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on August 25, 2019, 04:08:07 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on August 25, 2019, 03:55:44 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on August 25, 2019, 10:59:20 AM
I would probably say at this point almost no sedan out there would be considered "youthful." Most mid-size sedans are stuck in their gradually declining family/I don't like driving oriented dynamic that for some reason automakers won't let them evolve out of. There is a lot to be said about how Cross-Overs seem to have a wide open canvas for design elements in features but the sedan market (particularly mid-size) seems to be stuck in what it has been since the 1980s.
I'm not a fan of the crossover segment, but I'll be damned if I'm going to buy a car that doesn't have a squared-off rear-end. Hatch for life. It's a big reason why I'm part of the 5% who still prefer wagons.
To me the Crossover segment is just a melding of the station wagons and mini-vans of old. They certainly aren’t really many true body-on-frame SUVs floating around either. To me the crossovers just seem kind of dull and unnecessarily large, I’d rather have a conventional sedan or maybe a hatch back if I just need something to get around. Considering how well my Impreza just did on over 80 miles of Forest Service Roads I would say it was plenty capable. I would gotten the hatch had one been available in the base model.
My main gripe with the crossover is that it just doesn't do anything particularly well. Most simply can't tow that much (Durango being the best of the bunch for that) compared to a body-on-frame SUV, can't really haul that much compared to minivans, and get worse fuel economy and are far less fun to drive than an equivalent sedan or wagon (with which they usually share components). The only true advantage seems to be that it can carry a bit more compared to wagons (slightly taller cabin). Another "advantage" is the higher ride height, but I personally consider that a safety issue (higher center of balance* is more likely to induce a roll-over in an emergency maneuver).
* There are some crossovers with a low center of balance that are pretty wicked: Grand Cherokee Trackhawk, Tesla Model X, Alfa Romeo Stelvio, Porsche Cayenne. These are the few crossovers I would consider owning.
My wife had a 2018 Forester and I have a 2019 Impreza. In the handling department I’m easily able to smoke her CUV on any curvy mountain road. I’m finding that I have to take most curves at 5 MPH less in the Forester. I got her handily beat by 3-4 MPG in economy. Cargo space and the 2.5 flat four soundly beat my car with the kinda of weak 2.0. Off road capability in my opinion is kind of a wash. She isn’t clearing any large dips in that Forester just like I wouldn’t in the Impreza but both did well on the primitive Sierra Forest Road 6S40. Her deal is that she likes the high riding height and more cargo room for her junk all her nieces carry around. Personally I much rather have the better handling vehicle unless there was something like outright top not off-road capability. I’m probably off of paved highways more than 95-99% of drivers and I can make due with a sedan easily. Even that Sonic would make through most dirt or gravel roads albeit with a bumpy ride.
Sonics sound good compared to Geo Metros. I drove a brand new Metro over a lousy gravel "street" in the unincorporated area just south of Coos Bay's Empire District. Despite the newness, that suspension wallowed around like a 1958 Buick with bad shocks on the uneven surface. At least the vehicle drove decently enough on smooth pavement.
Rick
Quote from: nexus73 on August 25, 2019, 10:15:07 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on August 25, 2019, 07:17:34 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on August 25, 2019, 06:48:07 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on August 25, 2019, 04:08:07 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on August 25, 2019, 03:55:44 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on August 25, 2019, 10:59:20 AM
I would probably say at this point almost no sedan out there would be considered "youthful." Most mid-size sedans are stuck in their gradually declining family/I don't like driving oriented dynamic that for some reason automakers won't let them evolve out of. There is a lot to be said about how Cross-Overs seem to have a wide open canvas for design elements in features but the sedan market (particularly mid-size) seems to be stuck in what it has been since the 1980s.
I'm not a fan of the crossover segment, but I'll be damned if I'm going to buy a car that doesn't have a squared-off rear-end. Hatch for life. It's a big reason why I'm part of the 5% who still prefer wagons.
To me the Crossover segment is just a melding of the station wagons and mini-vans of old. They certainly aren't really many true body-on-frame SUVs floating around either. To me the crossovers just seem kind of dull and unnecessarily large, I'd rather have a conventional sedan or maybe a hatch back if I just need something to get around. Considering how well my Impreza just did on over 80 miles of Forest Service Roads I would say it was plenty capable. I would gotten the hatch had one been available in the base model.
My main gripe with the crossover is that it just doesn't do anything particularly well. Most simply can't tow that much (Durango being the best of the bunch for that) compared to a body-on-frame SUV, can't really haul that much compared to minivans, and get worse fuel economy and are far less fun to drive than an equivalent sedan or wagon (with which they usually share components). The only true advantage seems to be that it can carry a bit more compared to wagons (slightly taller cabin). Another "advantage" is the higher ride height, but I personally consider that a safety issue (higher center of balance* is more likely to induce a roll-over in an emergency maneuver).
* There are some crossovers with a low center of balance that are pretty wicked: Grand Cherokee Trackhawk, Tesla Model X, Alfa Romeo Stelvio, Porsche Cayenne. These are the few crossovers I would consider owning.
My wife had a 2018 Forester and I have a 2019 Impreza. In the handling department I'm easily able to smoke her CUV on any curvy mountain road. I'm finding that I have to take most curves at 5 MPH less in the Forester. I got her handily beat by 3-4 MPG in economy. Cargo space and the 2.5 flat four soundly beat my car with the kinda of weak 2.0. Off road capability in my opinion is kind of a wash. She isn't clearing any large dips in that Forester just like I wouldn't in the Impreza but both did well on the primitive Sierra Forest Road 6S40. Her deal is that she likes the high riding height and more cargo room for her junk all her nieces carry around. Personally I much rather have the better handling vehicle unless there was something like outright top not off-road capability. I'm probably off of paved highways more than 95-99% of drivers and I can make due with a sedan easily. Even that Sonic would make through most dirt or gravel roads albeit with a bumpy ride.
Sonics sound good compared to Geo Metros. I drove a brand new Metro over a lousy gravel "street" in the unincorporated area just south of Coos Bay's Empire District. Despite the newness, that suspension wallowed around like a 1958 Buick with bad shocks on the uneven surface. At least the vehicle drove decently enough on smooth pavement.
Rick
It was probably pretty nominal at best. The rear suspension on that Sonic was semi-independent and anything but smooth asphalt made it really unhappy really fast. I drove that Sonic on Mineral King Road a couple times and Bodie Road four times among some other notable dirt highways. Pretty much the back end of the Sonic bounced around even on the smoothest dirt surface. I bought that Sonic while I was living in the Florida Keys and it was much more suited to the environment out east in the swamps...be they saw grass or urban jungle.
The Impreza has a double wishbone suspension up front and back. Suffice to say the difference on a dirt or gravel roadway is massive to say the least.
Quote from: nexus73 on August 24, 2019, 06:04:01 PM$6600 could get you a S197 Mustang GT with high miles. Might as well be Joe Cool...LOL!
Given that the OP has a listed age of 17 (assuming such is true & current); he probably would be financially crucified insuring a Mustang.
Quote from: PHLBOS on August 26, 2019, 09:25:18 AM
Quote from: nexus73 on August 24, 2019, 06:04:01 PM$6600 could get you a S197 Mustang GT with high miles. Might as well be Joe Cool...LOL!
Given that the OP has a listed age of 17 (assuming such is true & current); he probably would be financially crucified insuring a Mustang.
And being a Male certainly won't help with the insurance rates, either.
Quote from: ozarkman417 on August 26, 2019, 10:40:15 AM
Quote from: PHLBOS on August 26, 2019, 09:25:18 AM
Quote from: nexus73 on August 24, 2019, 06:04:01 PM$6600 could get you a S197 Mustang GT with high miles. Might as well be Joe Cool...LOL!
Given that the OP has a listed age of 17 (assuming such is true & current); he probably would be financially crucified insuring a Mustang.
And being a Male certainly won't help with the insurance rates, either.
Funny, back in the 1990s I wanted a Camaro Z-28 but my Dad pointed out insurance would be a problem. I ended up buying a 1997 Silverado 4X4 when I was 17 (made more than I let on at a shop in town) which surprisingly didn't have all that high of insurance rates (I want to say it was something like $80 a month) in spite of the 350 V8 under the hood. I kind of wonder now if a V8 box frame truck would yield higher insurance rates for the demographic these days?
Funny how people still use the phrase Joe Cool even these days. All I can mentally associate with the term is this:
(https://vignette.wikia.nocookie.net/peanuts/images/5/58/Joe_Cool_in_He%27s_a_Bully%2C_Charlie_Brown.png/revision/latest/scale-to-width-down/125?cb=20151020144820)
Quote from: PHLBOS on August 26, 2019, 09:25:18 AM
Quote from: nexus73 on August 24, 2019, 06:04:01 PM$6600 could get you a S197 Mustang GT with high miles. Might as well be Joe Cool...LOL!
Given that the OP has a listed age of 17 (assuming such is true & current); he probably would be financially crucified insuring a Mustang.
Given the ever-escalating rates for those under 25, a V6 Camry is a Q-ship for the young masses.
But too many miles for that price - $4,000 or less, but rust-free and in great mechanical shape.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on August 26, 2019, 11:39:30 AM
Quote from: ozarkman417 on August 26, 2019, 10:40:15 AM
Quote from: PHLBOS on August 26, 2019, 09:25:18 AM
Quote from: nexus73 on August 24, 2019, 06:04:01 PM$6600 could get you a S197 Mustang GT with high miles. Might as well be Joe Cool...LOL!
Given that the OP has a listed age of 17 (assuming such is true & current); he probably would be financially crucified insuring a Mustang.
And being a Male certainly won't help with the insurance rates, either.
Funny, back in the 1990s I wanted a Camaro Z-28 but my Dad pointed out insurance would be a problem. I ended up buying a 1997 Silverado 4X4 when I was 17 (made more than I let on at a shop in town) which surprisingly didn't have all that high of insurance rates (I want to say it was something like $80 a month) in spite of the 350 V8 under the hood. I kind of wonder now if a V8 box frame truck would yield higher insurance rates for the demographic these days?
Funny how people still use the phrase Joe Cool even these days. All I can mentally associate with the term is this:
(https://vignette.wikia.nocookie.net/peanuts/images/5/58/Joe_Cool_in_He%27s_a_Bully%2C_Charlie_Brown.png/revision/latest/scale-to-width-down/125?cb=20151020144820)
Joe Cool is also Joe Flacco's nickname. He is now playing for the Broncos so look for him to be literally cool when the snow comes...LOL!
Rick
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on August 26, 2019, 11:39:30 AM
Funny how people still use the phrase Joe Cool even these days. All I can mentally associate with the term is this:
Might be a stretch.
Nexus is 63! LOL!
Quote from: jakeroot on August 26, 2019, 01:58:33 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on August 26, 2019, 11:39:30 AM
Funny how people still use the phrase Joe Cool even these days. All I can mentally associate with the term is this:
Might be a stretch. Nexus is 63! LOL!
Yeah but I still hear people you see than me say it. I would assume they have zero context as to who "Joe Cool" even was.
Quote from: jakeroot on August 26, 2019, 01:58:33 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on August 26, 2019, 11:39:30 AM
Funny how people still use the phrase Joe Cool even these days. All I can mentally associate with the term is this:
Might be a stretch. Nexus is 63! LOL!
...and I turn 64 in September!
Rick
the 2012-2014 camrys are a little boring, but still nice to drive. They are fun at first, but they get boring after a while.
Also, I'm going to maybe bring in another Camry and show the pictures and i will make sure i have the exterior of it. I'm going to shoot for the 2012-2014 camry this time. Because I think the ones form 2007-2014 are probably the best for a first car.
What I am about to say is probably going to be unpopular, but it is my $0.02, so here goes.
A car is the absolute worst investment you will ever make. The second you drive it off the lot, it usually depreciates anywhere between 10 and 20%, which means if you have payments that you are already upside down because you owe more than the car is worth. Insurance is another variable you have to consider, you are a young man so you are considered a high risk until you are 25 years old. Sure, your parents are probably going to pay for your insurance for now, but it is something you should think about because eventually you will have to buy your own insurance.
If you can wait to buy a car, I would wait until you absolutely have to. I understand how you feel about getting a car at your age, but the other posters on the board are right, $6,600 for a Camry with that kind of miles are way to high. I personally wouldn't pay more than $2000 for it. If you can buy a car outright, I would do that before taking on payments, as there are better ways to establish credit than a car payment.
Speaking for myself, I would never spend more than $2000 on a car, but I don't drive that much and just around town and if need be I have a city bus stop about a quarter of a mile from my house. If I want to take a road trip, I rent a car, just so I don't put extra miles on my car.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on August 26, 2019, 11:39:30 AM
Funny, back in the 1990s I wanted a Camaro Z-28 but my Dad pointed out insurance would be a problem. I ended up buying a 1997 Silverado 4X4 when I was 17 (made more than I let on at a shop in town) which surprisingly didn't have all that high of insurance rates (I want to say it was something like $80 a month) in spite of the 350 V8 under the hood. I kind of wonder now if a V8 box frame truck would yield higher insurance rates for the demographic these days?
Insurance companies typically don't rate a vehicle based on its engine. Back in the 80s many were charging just as much for 4-cylinder Mustangs & Camaros (such existed back then) as they were for their V8 counterparts. The reason... demand for body parts (which were obtained through theft).
Quote from: ce929wax on August 26, 2019, 11:40:06 PMA car is the absolute worst investment you will ever make. The second you drive it off the lot, it usually depreciates anywhere between 10 and 20%, which means if you have payments that you are already upside down because you owe more than the car is worth.
I believe such severe depreciation applies towards buying new. The OP's planning on buying a
used car (2007 Camry) so the depreciation argument is moot in this case.
Quote from: ce929wax on August 26, 2019, 11:40:06 PMInsurance is another variable you have to consider, you are a young man so you are considered a high risk until you are 25 years old. Sure, your parents are probably going to pay for your insurance for now, but it is something you should think about because eventually you will have to buy your own insurance.
Which is one reason why it's more sensible to buy something as mundane as a sedan vs. a sports/sporty car. Such was the reason (not the only one), why my cars (especially during my youth) were used all LTDs, Impalas & Grand Marquis' vs. Mustangs, Camaros, Cutlass Supremes and/or T-Birds. The full-size land-yachts were relatively cheap to insure.
Quote from: ce929wax on August 26, 2019, 11:40:06 PM
If you can wait to buy a car, I would wait until you absolutely have to. I understand how you feel about getting a car at your age, but the other posters on the board are right, $6,600 for a Camry with that kind of miles are way to high.
I do agree that paying $6600 for a high-mileage 12-year old mid-size car is excessive. Unfortunately, and this was mentioned upthread by others; there's still a mindset out there that if the car has a Toyota badge on it, it's worth more than a similar type model from a competitor. Had the car the OP was checking out had been a Fusion, Malibu, etc. of similar age & mileage; the asking price would've definitely been lower.
Quote from: ce929wax on August 26, 2019, 11:40:06 PMI personally wouldn't pay more than $2000 for it. If you can buy a car outright, I would do that before taking on payments, as there are better ways to establish credit than a car payment.
Agreed. I paid $300 for my first two cars ('69 LTD & '74 Impala) & $600 ('76 LTD) for my third car during the early-to-mid 1980s.
Quote from: ce929wax on August 26, 2019, 11:40:06 PM
Speaking for myself, I would never spend more than $2000 on a car,
These days, $2000 doesn't go as far in the used car market as it once did. Today, that amount usually translates to buying an older and/or higher mileage vehicle than say 15 to 20 years ago (such was a lot worse 10 years ago due to the ill-advised & short-lived Cash-For-Clunkers program took many perfectly good used cars off the market).
Quote from: ce929wax on August 26, 2019, 11:40:06 PM...but I don't drive that much and just around town and if need be I have a city bus stop about a quarter of a mile from my house. If I want to take a road trip, I rent a car, just so I don't put extra miles on my car.
Not everybody has that option/convenience readily available.
Quote from: PHLBOS on August 27, 2019, 09:45:33 AM
Quote from: ce929wax on August 26, 2019, 11:40:06 PMA car is the absolute worst investment you will ever make. The second you drive it off the lot, it usually depreciates anywhere between 10 and 20%, which means if you have payments that you are already upside down because you owe more than the car is worth.
I believe such severe depreciation applies towards buying new. The OP's planning on buying a used car (2007 Camry) so the depreciation argument is moot in this case.
Depreciation is probably the most widely mis-used term when buying a car. I'm pretty sure the term came from a used car salesperson.
Depreciation is mostly a tax term. If you're buying a car and you're writing it off on your taxes, you're depreciating it. Most of that aren't doing that.
Basically, this is what happens: You drive the car off the lot. If you want to return that car the very next day, the dealership isn't going to give you the full value of what you paid for it, because they needs to take the car back, clean it, make sure it works fine, and then resell it. To resell it, the seller needs to advertise it. All of this costs money.
Yes, this works with used cars as well. If you buy the car and decide the next day you don't want it, you probably won't get the full value for it. Just as in the case of a new car, they needs to take the car back, clean it, make sure it works fine, and then resell it. To resell it, the seller needs to advertise it. Again, all of this costs money.
Now, maybe you get lucky and the salesperson or dealership will give you 100% of the vehicle cost, but that's probably dependent on a number of factors; the most important of which is that the car is in the same condition you purchased it from the previous day; doesn't have several hundred miles on it, and you buy another vehicle from that sales person.
If you want bad depreciation...what did you eat at your last meal? If you're hungry again, guess what - the money you paid for that meal depreciated 100%.
So don't think that driving a car off the lot depreciates it 10% - 20%. It doesn't, because the term isn't accurate. Or better yet, buy a used car and tell the salesperson a month later you don't want it after you put 5,000 miles on the car and leave your slurpee and fish meal in the back seat. You ain't getting back 99% of the value of what you paid for it either. If anything, buying a used car involves numerous risks that a new car usually doesn't have, much of which is a warranty; worried about the ass that sat in the drivers seat before you, etc. Which is why I'm certain the depreciation term came from a used car salesperson, to distract the purchaser from those very risks a used car buyer has to deal with.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on August 27, 2019, 10:17:53 AMDepreciation is probably the most widely mis-used term when buying a car.
Would
reduction in resale value be a more accurate term? That said, resale value only matters if one plans to sell off the vehicle in a few years. If one buys a vehicle with the intention of owning it for life; the resale value of it, unless the purchased vehicle in question is a limited-production collectible, is moot.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on August 27, 2019, 10:17:53 AMDepreciation is mostly a tax term. If you're buying a car and you're writing it off on your taxes, you're depreciating it. Most of that aren't doing that.
Unless one is buying either a company vehicle or using theirs for business purposes beyond commuting; I don't believe that vehicle purchases are tax deductible anymore... at least not after 1986. Prior to 1986, interest accrued on car loans was tax deductible.
Quote from: ce929wax on August 26, 2019, 11:40:06 PMA car is the absolute worst investment you will ever make. The second you drive it off the lot, it usually depreciates anywhere between 10 and 20%, which means if you have payments that you are already upside down because you owe more than the car is worth.
Yes. From an economist's point of view, a car is consumption, not investment.
Quote from: PHLBOS on August 27, 2019, 11:34:35 AM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on August 27, 2019, 10:17:53 AMDepreciation is probably the most widely mis-used term when buying a car.
Would reduction in resale value be a more accurate term? That said, resale value only matters if one plans to sell off the vehicle in a few years. If one buys a vehicle with the intention of owning it for life; the resale value of it, unless the purchased vehicle in question is a limited-production collectible, is moot.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on August 27, 2019, 10:17:53 AMDepreciation is mostly a tax term. If you're buying a car and you're writing it off on your taxes, you're depreciating it. Most of that aren't doing that.
Unless one is buying either a company vehicle or using theirs for business purposes beyond commuting; I don't believe that vehicle purchases are tax deductible anymore... at least not after 1986. Prior to 1986, interest accrued on car loans was tax deductible.
Bingo on both points. Apparently credit card interest was tax deductible at one point also...that came to a crashing halt a long time ago!
Quote from: PHLBOS on August 27, 2019, 11:34:35 AM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on August 27, 2019, 10:17:53 AMDepreciation is probably the most widely mis-used term when buying a car.
Would reduction in resale value be a more accurate term? That said, resale value only matters if one plans to sell off the vehicle in a few years. If one buys a vehicle with the intention of owning it for life; the resale value of it, unless the purchased vehicle in question is a limited-production collectible, is moot.
Which is exactly what some of us here do. I prefer to buy new and keep the car as long as possible and don't really care about how many miles I'm puting on it. This way, I know the user history, the maintenance history, and where it's been, and what's been done to it.
Quote from: Brandon on August 27, 2019, 12:34:26 PM
Quote from: PHLBOS on August 27, 2019, 11:34:35 AM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on August 27, 2019, 10:17:53 AMDepreciation is probably the most widely mis-used term when buying a car.
Would reduction in resale value be a more accurate term? That said, resale value only matters if one plans to sell off the vehicle in a few years. If one buys a vehicle with the intention of owning it for life; the resale value of it, unless the purchased vehicle in question is a limited-production collectible, is moot.
Which is exactly what some of us here do. I prefer to buy new and keep the car as long as possible and don't really care about how many miles I'm puting on it. This way, I know the user history, the maintenance history, and where it's been, and what's been done to it.
I do the same, usually my daily drivers get at least 6 plus years and at least 150,000 miles. At that point unless the car was super expensive it's hard to say you didn't get your money's worth. Plus I trust myself to take car of a new car way more than any passed trash I have to roll the dice on in the used car market.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on August 27, 2019, 12:10:25 PM
Apparently credit card interest was tax deductible at one point also...that came to a crashing halt a long time ago!
Correct. Such went away at the same time car loan payments became no longer deductible as part of the Income Tax Reform Act of 1986. I remember seeing ads from local dealerships when the '86 models came out enticing people to buy now before the tax laws changed. To a degree, such advertising worked as sales of vehicles saw a noticeable uptick during that period.
Of course over time when people could no longer deduct their credit card and/or car loan interest from their taxes; interest rates ultimately lowered.
Quote from: Brandon on August 27, 2019, 12:34:26 PM
Quote from: PHLBOS on August 27, 2019, 11:34:35 AM...resale value only matters if one plans to sell off the vehicle in a few years. If one buys a vehicle with the intention of owning it for life; the resale value of it, unless the purchased vehicle in question is a limited-production collectible, is moot.
Which is exactly what some of us here do. I prefer to buy new and keep the car as long as possible and don't really care about how many miles I'm putting on it. This way, I know the user history, the maintenance history, and where it's been, and what's been done to it.
If one can do such, go for it. But given the prices that new vehicles go for today; there are many out there that simply can not afford to do such... especially if they want/need something more than a subcompact/compact... which is the market/demographic that the used car market is for.
A friend of mine recently bought a used 2017 Navigator L because he needed a large vehicle to haul the family & stuff. He probably couldn't afford the cost of a new 2019 model.
Additionally, if one wants a vehicle type that has since been discontinued; the only choice they have would be to purchase a used variant of such. When I lost my '97 Crown Vic (my first new vehicle purchase) in an accident 3-1/2 years ago; the only way I could purchase a newer version of the same exact vehicle was to purchase a used one... which was what I did. I now have a black 2011 model (the final year for the type) that was a former rental when new. Had Ford still made the Crown Vic when I was looking for a replacement (March 2016); I would ordered one right then & there.
Quote from: PHLBOS on August 27, 2019, 11:34:35 AM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on August 27, 2019, 10:17:53 AM
Depreciation is probably the most widely mis-used term when buying a car.
Would reduction in resale value be a more accurate term? That said, resale value only matters if one plans to sell off the vehicle in a few years. If one buys a vehicle with the intention of owning it for life; the resale value of it, unless the purchased vehicle in question is a limited-production collectible, is moot.
I think that's a better term. In
jeffandnicole's post, there was the assumption that a person is buying the used car from a dealership and then also selling it to a dealership. Well, that's certainly not true for everyone. If I buy a used car at a dealership, then turn around and sell it to a private individual, chances are decent I can get the full price I paid for the car. Also, if I buy a used car from a private individual, then turn around and sell it to another private individual, chances are decent I can sell it for even more than I bought it for. This simply cannot happen with new cars, as all new cars come from dealerships.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on August 27, 2019, 12:38:29 PM
Quote from: Brandon on August 27, 2019, 12:34:26 PM
Quote from: PHLBOS on August 27, 2019, 11:34:35 AM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on August 27, 2019, 10:17:53 AMDepreciation is probably the most widely mis-used term when buying a car.
Would reduction in resale value be a more accurate term? That said, resale value only matters if one plans to sell off the vehicle in a few years. If one buys a vehicle with the intention of owning it for life; the resale value of it, unless the purchased vehicle in question is a limited-production collectible, is moot.
Which is exactly what some of us here do. I prefer to buy new and keep the car as long as possible and don't really care about how many miles I'm puting on it. This way, I know the user history, the maintenance history, and where it's been, and what's been done to it.
I do the same, usually my daily drivers get at least 6 plus years and at least 150,000 miles. At that point unless the car was super expensive it’s hard to say you didn’t get your money’s worth. Plus I trust myself to take car of a new car way more than any passed trash I have to roll the dice on in the used car market.
Driving 25K per annum means you cannot afford to have a beater which breaks down. If your income allows for the expense, consider a lease. Just figure you are paying a monthly expense to have reliable transportation and if the lease is for two or three years, you will always be under warranty and should the dealership have a good policy for loaners, you will never be bereft of wheeled transport. Is that worth $200 to $400 a month?
Rick
Quote from: nexus73 on August 27, 2019, 05:38:48 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on August 27, 2019, 12:38:29 PM
Quote from: Brandon on August 27, 2019, 12:34:26 PM
Quote from: PHLBOS on August 27, 2019, 11:34:35 AM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on August 27, 2019, 10:17:53 AMDepreciation is probably the most widely mis-used term when buying a car.
Would reduction in resale value be a more accurate term? That said, resale value only matters if one plans to sell off the vehicle in a few years. If one buys a vehicle with the intention of owning it for life; the resale value of it, unless the purchased vehicle in question is a limited-production collectible, is moot.
Which is exactly what some of us here do. I prefer to buy new and keep the car as long as possible and don't really care about how many miles I'm puting on it. This way, I know the user history, the maintenance history, and where it's been, and what's been done to it.
I do the same, usually my daily drivers get at least 6 plus years and at least 150,000 miles. At that point unless the car was super expensive it's hard to say you didn't get your money's worth. Plus I trust myself to take car of a new car way more than any passed trash I have to roll the dice on in the used car market.
Driving 25K per annum means you cannot afford to have a beater which breaks down. If your income allows for the expense, consider a lease. Just figure you are paying a monthly expense to have reliable transportation and if the lease is for two or three years, you will always be under warranty and should the dealership have a good policy for loaners, you will never be bereft of wheeled transport. Is that worth $200 to $400 a month?
Rick
Aren't most leases restricted to something like 12,000 miles a year?
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on August 27, 2019, 05:50:06 PM
Aren’t most leases restricted to something like 12,000 miles a year?
You can sign for different terms, though with varying mileage penalties.
12K seems to be the standard, but I've seen 9K, 10K, and 15K leases out there in dealership-la-la-land.
Quote from: nexus73 on August 27, 2019, 05:38:48 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on August 27, 2019, 12:38:29 PM
Quote from: Brandon on August 27, 2019, 12:34:26 PM
Quote from: PHLBOS on August 27, 2019, 11:34:35 AM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on August 27, 2019, 10:17:53 AMDepreciation is probably the most widely mis-used term when buying a car.
Would reduction in resale value be a more accurate term? That said, resale value only matters if one plans to sell off the vehicle in a few years. If one buys a vehicle with the intention of owning it for life; the resale value of it, unless the purchased vehicle in question is a limited-production collectible, is moot.
Which is exactly what some of us here do. I prefer to buy new and keep the car as long as possible and don't really care about how many miles I'm puting on it. This way, I know the user history, the maintenance history, and where it's been, and what's been done to it.
If a common beater is well-built, a la the Camry, and well maintained, there's no reason it couldn't do 25k in a year.
I do the same, usually my daily drivers get at least 6 plus years and at least 150,000 miles. At that point unless the car was super expensive it's hard to say you didn't get your money's worth. Plus I trust myself to take car of a new car way more than any passed trash I have to roll the dice on in the used car market.
Driving 25K per annum means you cannot afford to have a beater which breaks down. If your income allows for the expense, consider a lease. Just figure you are paying a monthly expense to have reliable transportation and if the lease is for two or three years, you will always be under warranty and should the dealership have a good policy for loaners, you will never be bereft of wheeled transport. Is that worth $200 to $400 a month?
Rick
Quote from: formulanone on August 27, 2019, 05:59:41 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on August 27, 2019, 05:50:06 PM
Aren't most leases restricted to something like 12,000 miles a year?
You can sign for different terms, though with varying mileage penalties.
12K seems to be the standard, but I've seen 9K, 10K, and 15K leases out there in dealership-la-la-land.
Still too low. I drive 30k to 50k miles a year on average. Way outside lease territory. And I want the vehicle I want, not some pos the dealer wants to lease out.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on August 27, 2019, 05:50:06 PM
Quote from: nexus73 on August 27, 2019, 05:38:48 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on August 27, 2019, 12:38:29 PM
Quote from: Brandon on August 27, 2019, 12:34:26 PM
Quote from: PHLBOS on August 27, 2019, 11:34:35 AM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on August 27, 2019, 10:17:53 AMDepreciation is probably the most widely mis-used term when buying a car.
Would reduction in resale value be a more accurate term? That said, resale value only matters if one plans to sell off the vehicle in a few years. If one buys a vehicle with the intention of owning it for life; the resale value of it, unless the purchased vehicle in question is a limited-production collectible, is moot.
Which is exactly what some of us here do. I prefer to buy new and keep the car as long as possible and don't really care about how many miles I'm puting on it. This way, I know the user history, the maintenance history, and where it's been, and what's been done to it.
I do the same, usually my daily drivers get at least 6 plus years and at least 150,000 miles. At that point unless the car was super expensive it’s hard to say you didn’t get your money’s worth. Plus I trust myself to take car of a new car way more than any passed trash I have to roll the dice on in the used car market.
Driving 25K per annum means you cannot afford to have a beater which breaks down. If your income allows for the expense, consider a lease. Just figure you are paying a monthly expense to have reliable transportation and if the lease is for two or three years, you will always be under warranty and should the dealership have a good policy for loaners, you will never be bereft of wheeled transport. Is that worth $200 to $400 a month?
Rick
Aren’t most leases restricted to something like 12,000 miles a year?
One can pay a fee for excessive miles. You could also ask about higher mile allowance leases. Check with the dealer of your choice!
Rick
Quote from: Brandon on August 27, 2019, 09:26:23 PM
Quote from: formulanone on August 27, 2019, 05:59:41 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on August 27, 2019, 05:50:06 PM
Aren’t most leases restricted to something like 12,000 miles a year?
You can sign for different terms, though with varying mileage penalties.
12K seems to be the standard, but I've seen 9K, 10K, and 15K leases out there in dealership-la-la-land.
Still too low. I drive 30k to 50k miles a year on average. Way outside lease territory.
It's more about the dealer getting maximum resale value for the vehicle as a "quality" used car. A three-year-old car with 80,000 miles seems suspicious to most buyers* and offers no remnant of its factory warranty. So I don't think any brand is going to offer those kinds of lease terms. If they were to inflate the lease price to offset the depreciation, you might as well buy the darn thing and make 4-5 years of payments.
Frankly, the lease is great for the subset of folks which get bored of their vehicles and have a lot of money to burn just to have something shiny. Or have a part/all of the payment absorbed by some other entity (company car, et al). When I worked at a dealership, you were eligible for reduced lease payments up to a certain value, depending on senority. But for most people, it's a bit of a waste.
* however, my experience is that those who drive their car way above average yearly mileage often tend to maintain it fairly well, because they're even more dependent on it.
Quote from: Brandon on August 27, 2019, 09:26:23 PM
Quote from: formulanone on August 27, 2019, 05:59:41 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on August 27, 2019, 05:50:06 PM
Aren't most leases restricted to something like 12,000 miles a year?
You can sign for different terms, though with varying mileage penalties.
12K seems to be the standard, but I've seen 9K, 10K, and 15K leases out there in dealership-la-la-land.
Still too low. I drive 30k to 50k miles a year on average. Way outside lease territory. And I want the vehicle I want, not some pos the dealer wants to lease out.
I've been in the same range and up to 80k in the last decade, hence why a lease hasn't been a viable option. At the end of the day I rather have a car that's mine, usually I pay my cars off in 2.5-3 years anyways. Most of my high mileage cars become my grocery getter.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on August 27, 2019, 11:55:16 PM
Quote from: Brandon on August 27, 2019, 09:26:23 PM
Quote from: formulanone on August 27, 2019, 05:59:41 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on August 27, 2019, 05:50:06 PM
Aren't most leases restricted to something like 12,000 miles a year?
You can sign for different terms, though with varying mileage penalties.
12K seems to be the standard, but I've seen 9K, 10K, and 15K leases out there in dealership-la-la-land.
Still too low. I drive 30k to 50k miles a year on average. Way outside lease territory. And I want the vehicle I want, not some pos the dealer wants to lease out.
I've been in the same range and up to 80k in the last decade, hence why a lease hasn't been a viable option. At the end of the day I rather have a car that's mine, usually I pay my cars off in 2.5-3 years anyways. Most of my high mileage cars become my grocery getter.
I would love to see someone keep a car for 10 years...
Quote from: mrhappy1261 on August 28, 2019, 04:57:35 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on August 27, 2019, 11:55:16 PM
Quote from: Brandon on August 27, 2019, 09:26:23 PM
Quote from: formulanone on August 27, 2019, 05:59:41 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on August 27, 2019, 05:50:06 PM
Aren't most leases restricted to something like 12,000 miles a year?
You can sign for different terms, though with varying mileage penalties.
12K seems to be the standard, but I've seen 9K, 10K, and 15K leases out there in dealership-la-la-land.
Still too low. I drive 30k to 50k miles a year on average. Way outside lease territory. And I want the vehicle I want, not some pos the dealer wants to lease out.
I've been in the same range and up to 80k in the last decade, hence why a lease hasn't been a viable option. At the end of the day I rather have a car that's mine, usually I pay my cars off in 2.5-3 years anyways. Most of my high mileage cars become my grocery getter.
I would love to see someone keep a car for 10 years...
My parents had a 1981 Dodge Aries (bought new) that hit the dust in 1995. That was replaced with a 1996 Dodge Grand Caravan (bought new) that finally was traded in in 2009. Then they have a 2003 Chrysler 300M (bought new) that is still with us. So there you have it, two 14 year old cars and a 16 year old car.
Quote from: mrhappy1261 on August 28, 2019, 04:57:35 PMI would love to see someone keep a car for 10 years...
Doesn't everybody?
My current daily driver turned 25 last February. Others I know react with horror when it is suggested that they get rid of vehicles that are over 20 years old. "I couldn't possibly do that. It still runs."
Quote from: J N Winkler on August 28, 2019, 06:06:09 PM
Quote from: mrhappy1261 on August 28, 2019, 04:57:35 PMI would love to see someone keep a car for 10 years...
Doesn't everybody?
My current daily driver turned 25 last February. Others I know react with horror when it is suggested that they get rid of vehicles that are over 20 years old. "I couldn't possibly do that. It still runs."
Oh my. I've found quite the opposite. Keep a car for more than ten years, and it starts to feel like one of the older ones around. We usually trade in after around five years, right before we have to dump a lot of money into it. We do enough traveling and put enough mileage on that it's just not worth having an unreliable car. I guess we also have the extra wear and tear associated with winter weather.
Quote from: webny99 on August 28, 2019, 07:58:55 PM
Quote from: J N Winkler on August 28, 2019, 06:06:09 PM
Quote from: mrhappy1261 on August 28, 2019, 04:57:35 PMI would love to see someone keep a car for 10 years...
Doesn't everybody?
My current daily driver turned 25 last February. Others I know react with horror when it is suggested that they get rid of vehicles that are over 20 years old. "I couldn't possibly do that. It still runs."
I'd probably still have every car I've ever owned if I had the space.
Oh my. I've found quite the opposite. Keep a car for more than ten years, and it starts to feel like one of the older ones around. We usually trade in after around five years, right before we have to dump a lot of money into it. We do enough traveling and put enough mileage on that it's just not worth having an unreliable car. I guess we also have the extra wear and tear associated with winter weather.
Quote from: J N Winkler on August 28, 2019, 06:06:09 PM
Quote from: mrhappy1261 on August 28, 2019, 04:57:35 PMI would love to see someone keep a car for 10 years...
Doesn't everybody?
My current daily driver turned 25 last February. Others I know react with horror when it is suggested that they get rid of vehicles that are over 20 years old. "I couldn't possibly do that. It still runs."
People in some countries trying to keep their car as long as possible are going to run into a problem in the 2030s & 40s. Gas cars and/or the sale of them may be banned in select countries around that time.
SM-G965U
Quote from: mrhappy1261 on August 28, 2019, 04:57:35 PM
I would love to see someone keep a car for 10 years...
Plenty of people do. I had my previous car for 16 years, the car before that for 10 years. And I hope that my current car (4 years old) will make it at least that far. (Assuming
I make it that far myself :-P)
And I'm guessing others will chime in as well.
Not due to financial reasons; I just dislike the B.S. that I typically go through at a new car dealer.
Quote from: webny99 on August 28, 2019, 07:58:55 PMOh my. I've found quite the opposite. Keep a car for more than ten years, and it starts to feel like one of the older ones around. We usually trade in after around five years, right before we have to dump a lot of money into it. We do enough traveling and put enough mileage on that it's just not worth having an unreliable car. I guess we also have the extra wear and tear associated with winter weather.
We stay up to date on routine maintenance. We generally find that the long-interval maintenance (coolant, spark plugs, ignition coils, transmission fluid, timing belt if so equipped, etc.) and wear item renewal (tires, brake pads, battery, alternator, water pump, etc.) are significantly cheaper than buying new or even "fresh" used. And I consider my daily driver suitable for out-of-town travel, having used it for that purpose as recently as 2015. It is actually more reliable now than it was when it was newer, largely because most of the badly designed parts have been replaced with others that are better specified for their purpose. It has set CELs twice in its life, the last of which was 19 years ago.
In your case, I think it is five months annually when the roads are not salt-free that constrains useful service life. We do use salt and we get winter storms, but roads do not stay snow-bound for any significant length of time and we can usually wash salt off within a week. I go under my daily driver about once a year to change the oil and there isn't really any noticeable rust on the underbody.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on August 28, 2019, 08:28:49 PMI'd probably still have every car I've ever owned if I had the space.
Yes. Once the goal of never carrying a car payment is achieved, it is still possible to run into a problem with excess durability, especially with EFI cars in areas with mild winters.
Quote from: ozarkman417 on August 28, 2019, 08:45:25 PMPeople in some countries trying to keep their car as long as possible are going to run into a problem in the 2030s & 40s. Gas cars and/or the sale of them may be banned in select countries around that time.
Much will still depend on the timing and extent of any measures the US takes to tackle climate change. I think the likeliest scenario is that production of cars with IC engines (gasoline or diesel) as the prime movers will be phased out, beginning probably in the 2030's, and it will then become economically unattractive to continue driving existing gas-powered cars as carbon offsetting becomes baked into the price of fuel at the pump, with carbon levies collected at the terminal in the same manner as fuel taxes now. Electric cars will become appealing as a way to divorce motoring from the carbon cycle, but the eventual vehicle mix will depend on the extent to which technology overcomes range limitations. I think it will take range comparable to existing gas-powered cars to avoid the emergence of a bimodal vehicle fleet where electric cars are used for short-range trips in urban areas and gas cars/diesel trucks for longer trips and interurban highway transportation.
I am in good health, try to eat sensibly, and have had ancestors who reached their nineties. Nevertheless I will be surprised if gas-powered cars cease to be used for day-to-day transportation before I have to stop driving.
Quote from: J N Winkler on August 28, 2019, 06:06:09 PM
Quote from: mrhappy1261 on August 28, 2019, 04:57:35 PMI would love to see someone keep a car for 10 years...
Doesn't everybody?
My current daily driver turned 25 last February. Others I know react with horror when it is suggested that they get rid of vehicles that are over 20 years old. "I couldn't possibly do that. It still runs."
Yeah, but my parents stopped doing it due to breakdowns.
Quote from: mrhappy1261 on August 28, 2019, 04:57:35 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on August 27, 2019, 11:55:16 PM
Quote from: Brandon on August 27, 2019, 09:26:23 PM
Quote from: formulanone on August 27, 2019, 05:59:41 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on August 27, 2019, 05:50:06 PM
Aren't most leases restricted to something like 12,000 miles a year?
You can sign for different terms, though with varying mileage penalties.
12K seems to be the standard, but I've seen 9K, 10K, and 15K leases out there in dealership-la-la-land.
Still too low. I drive 30k to 50k miles a year on average. Way outside lease territory. And I want the vehicle I want, not some pos the dealer wants to lease out.
I've been in the same range and up to 80k in the last decade, hence why a lease hasn't been a viable option. At the end of the day I rather have a car that's mine, usually I pay my cars off in 2.5-3 years anyways. Most of my high mileage cars become my grocery getter.
I would love to see someone keep a car for 10 years...
I have a 2004 Acura TL. Bought it new and it's my primary vehicle. I love driving it and I plan to keep it as long as it stays reliable and doesn't become a cost burden. My wife has a 2003 Acura RSX. She bought it at Carmax in May 2005. It's no longer her primary vehicle because in 2017 she decided she wanted an automatic shift, but we kept the RSX because the hatchback makes it a very useful car.
Our other car, which we're thinking about selling because we no longer drive it enough, is a 1988 RX-7. Her former boyfriend bought it new and sold it to her sometime in the 1990s. She sold it to me in May 2005 when she got the RSX. So I have two cars I've kept for over ten years.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on August 28, 2019, 08:28:49 PM
Quote from: webny99 on August 28, 2019, 07:58:55 PM
Quote from: J N Winkler on August 28, 2019, 06:06:09 PM
Quote from: mrhappy1261 on August 28, 2019, 04:57:35 PMI would love to see someone keep a car for 10 years...
Doesn't everybody?
My current daily driver turned 25 last February. Others I know react with horror when it is suggested that they get rid of vehicles that are over 20 years old. "I couldn't possibly do that. It still runs."
Oh my. I've found quite the opposite. Keep a car for more than ten years, and it starts to feel like one of the older ones around. We usually trade in after around five years, right before we have to dump a lot of money into it. We do enough traveling and put enough mileage on that it's just not worth having an unreliable car. I guess we also have the extra wear and tear associated with winter weather.
I'd probably still have every car I've ever owned if I had the space.
FTQSFY.
Quote from: webny99 on August 29, 2019, 09:20:18 AM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on August 28, 2019, 08:28:49 PM
Quote from: webny99 on August 28, 2019, 07:58:55 PM
Quote from: J N Winkler on August 28, 2019, 06:06:09 PM
Quote from: mrhappy1261 on August 28, 2019, 04:57:35 PMI would love to see someone keep a car for 10 years...
Doesn't everybody?
My current daily driver turned 25 last February. Others I know react with horror when it is suggested that they get rid of vehicles that are over 20 years old. "I couldn't possibly do that. It still runs."
Oh my. I've found quite the opposite. Keep a car for more than ten years, and it starts to feel like one of the older ones around. We usually trade in after around five years, right before we have to dump a lot of money into it. We do enough traveling and put enough mileage on that it's just not worth having an unreliable car. I guess we also have the extra wear and tear associated with winter weather.
I'd probably still have every car I've ever owned if I had the space.
FTQSFY.
Meh, I was at work and didn't even notice it was jacked up. I had an interrupted thought anyways on the topic. Most of my cars that I've gotten rid of really weren't worth much and would have more value keeping until they no longer ran. In particular my 4x4 Chevy Silverado was the one that disappointed me most to get rid of and by far would be the one I would get the most use out of today. The Mustang, Fiesta and Sun Bird would have been nice hand-me-downs which would only leave the Camaro as the only other car I'd personally want to regularly drive even today. Trouble was that moving around as much as I do means I haven't really had an opportunity to own property where I could store things until this last two years.
Quote from: mrhappy1261 on August 28, 2019, 04:57:35 PMI would love to see someone keep a car for 10 years...
I've done such with two of my past cars as well as one of my current ones.
I owned a '76 Ford LTD Landau coupe from 1993 to 2010 (I drove it through 2007, then my brother had it from then to 2010).
My fore-mentioned '97 Ford Crown Victoria LX was the first new car I ever bought. I owned it from Nov. 1996 through Feb. 2016 when it was totaled in a 3-car accident. I probably would still own it now had such not happened.
I've owned my 2007 Mustang Pony Package convertible since Aug. of 2007.
Quote from: PHLBOS on August 29, 2019, 05:10:18 PM
Quote from: mrhappy1261 on August 28, 2019, 04:57:35 PMI would love to see someone keep a car for 10 years...
I've done such with two of my past cars as well as one of my current ones.
I owned a '76 Ford LTD Landau coupe from 1993 to 2010 (I drove it through 2007, then my brother had it from then to 2010).
My fore-mentioned '97 Ford Crown Victoria LX was the first new car I ever bought. I owned it from Nov. 1996 through Feb. 2016 when it was totaled in a 3-car accident. I probably would still own it now had such not happened.
I've owned my 2007 Mustang Pony Package convertible since Aug. of 2007.
That's awesome. I think every 3-5 years or depending how reliable the car and how many problems i get, I would get a car for my senior year at high school and definitely college. I went inside a Toyota Corolla and it's not that bad for me. I just don't like the civic that much, that's all.
But still, I love Accord and Camry.
I driven a 2012 Toyota Camry for the first time when I was still in driver's ed. It felt good! I wish i took that car home.
Quote from: mrhappy1261 on September 01, 2019, 12:47:42 PM
I driven a 2012 Toyota Camry for the first time when I was still in driver's ed. It felt good! I wish i took that car home.
Meanwhile in Missouri driver's ed is not required. Instead I need forty hours of behind-the-wheel practice with a parent.
SM-G965U
Quote from: ozarkman417 on September 01, 2019, 04:58:59 PM
Quote from: mrhappy1261 on September 01, 2019, 12:47:42 PM
I driven a 2012 Toyota Camry for the first time when I was still in driver's ed. It felt good! I wish i took that car home.
Meanwhile in Missouri driver's ed is not required. Instead I need forty hours of behind-the-wheel practice with a parent.
SM-G965U
That's not fair really. For here, you need 30 hours of instructional time and 6 hours of behind the wheel test to get your permit.
In CT it used to be that if you were an adult you did not need an instruction permit to learn how to drive. You could drive without a license as long as a licensed driver was next to you providing instruction. This went away only a few years ago, probably because it's a giant loophole.
Quote from: mrhappy1261 on September 01, 2019, 05:06:38 PM
Quote from: ozarkman417 on September 01, 2019, 04:58:59 PM
Quote from: mrhappy1261 on September 01, 2019, 12:47:42 PM
I driven a 2012 Toyota Camry for the first time when I was still in driver's ed. It felt good! I wish i took that car home.
Meanwhile in Missouri driver's ed is not required. Instead I need forty hours of behind-the-wheel practice with a parent.
SM-G965U
That's not fair really. For here, you need 30 hours of instructional time and 6 hours of behind the wheel test to get your permit.
Well, maybe MO Does need driver's ed. NC is fairly high (or low if we're talking numbers) on this list: https://wallethub.com/edu/best-worst-states-for-teen-drivers/4598/ (https://wallethub.com/edu/best-worst-states-for-teen-drivers/4598/)
Quote from: ozarkman417 on September 01, 2019, 11:07:42 PM
Quote from: mrhappy1261 on September 01, 2019, 05:06:38 PM
Quote from: ozarkman417 on September 01, 2019, 04:58:59 PM
Quote from: mrhappy1261 on September 01, 2019, 12:47:42 PM
I driven a 2012 Toyota Camry for the first time when I was still in driver's ed. It felt good! I wish i took that car home.
Meanwhile in Missouri driver's ed is not required. Instead I need forty hours of behind-the-wheel practice with a parent.
SM-G965U
That's not fair really. For here, you need 30 hours of instructional time and 6 hours of behind the wheel test to get your permit.
Well, maybe MO Does need driver's ed. NC is fairly high (or low if we're talking numbers) on this list: https://wallethub.com/edu/best-worst-states-for-teen-drivers/4598/ (https://wallethub.com/edu/best-worst-states-for-teen-drivers/4598/)
Didn't know Wyoming was the worst. Driver's ed is the way to go if you want your license! You take it through high school or you pay a driving school.
Quote from: ce929wax on August 26, 2019, 11:40:06 PM
The second you drive it off the lot, it usually depreciates anywhere between 10 and 20%, which means if you have payments that you are already upside down because you owe more than the car is worth. Insurance is another variable you have to consider, you are a young man so you are considered a high risk until you are 25 years old.
And I'd like to add that if you have younger relatives who drive and neither you nor they can afford to move out of your parent's place, even turning 25 won't get you out of hock to the insurance companies.
FYI, my Camry has over 233,000 on the odometer.
Who likes steel wheels?
Quote from: mrhappy1261 on September 07, 2019, 09:46:06 PM
Who likes steel wheels?
I have steel on my Impreza, they look just fine to me without hubcaps IMO. The problem is that they scratch somewhat easy and are rust prone if you get them hacked up.
Quote from: mrhappy1261 on August 24, 2019, 07:00:07 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on August 24, 2019, 06:56:49 PM
I'm 6'1 myself and I drove a Chevy Sonic in addition to a Ford Fiesta through the last 7 years as daily drivers. That's a myth a lot of people try to perpetuate that sub-compact cars can't be operated comfortably by tall people.
How about sitting in the back seat?
I don't think any car can be operated comfortably sitting in the back seat, no matter how tall you are.
Alloy wheels are considered more stylish and upscale than steel wheels, and if they are designed so that they actually weigh less than steel wheels, they offer better suspension performance because they reduce unsprung weight. But they are also more fragile because the finish is protected by a coating that is susceptible to dulling and various forms of chemical and mechanical attack.
Curb rash (the result of rubbing the wheels against a curb) basically cannot be repaired short of refinishing the wheel. Brake dust also combines with wet to create a corrosive paste that dulls the finish, and simply leaving the car parked outside where it is exposed to occasional spray from a timed sprinkler system is enough to dull the coating through UV being concentrated by water droplets. Alloy wheels are asking for grief in large cities where parking is so scarce that it is frequently necessary to parallel-park--San Francisco is a classic example.
I know a few people who insist on steelies (as well as minimum option provision) for vehicles that they buy new to use as daily drivers. I understand the philosophy behind such an approach, but before I followed it myself, I would want to ensure that the cheaper trim offered satisfactory NVH characteristics.
After owning a first car that had neither A/C nor cruise control, renting a car in Alaska that had no cruise control, and running a daily driver for almost 10 years with working cruise control and nonfunctional A/C, I have come to realize I am not interested in owning a car for any length of time that does not have cruise control. I can accommodate absent A/C by using the blower fan, changing into sweat-ready clothing before I drive, and rolling down the windows as needed. Meanwhile, not being able to rely on cruise multiplies the effort required to track in a straight line by at least four and makes it much harder to keep a clean license.
My mom is looking to get me some accord or camry that's under $12,000.
Quote from: Scott5114 on September 08, 2019, 04:12:31 AM
Quote from: mrhappy1261 on August 24, 2019, 07:00:07 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on August 24, 2019, 06:56:49 PM
I'm 6'1 myself and I drove a Chevy Sonic in addition to a Ford Fiesta through the last 7 years as daily drivers. That's a myth a lot of people try to perpetuate that sub-compact cars can't be operated comfortably by tall people.
How about sitting in the back seat?
I don't think any car can be operated comfortably sitting in the back seat, no matter how tall you are.
Have you looked at the Audi A8 or the Toyota Avalon or Buick Lacrosse?
Quote from: mrhappy1261 on September 08, 2019, 12:33:13 PM
Quote from: Scott5114 on September 08, 2019, 04:12:31 AM
Quote from: mrhappy1261 on August 24, 2019, 07:00:07 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on August 24, 2019, 06:56:49 PM
I'm 6'1 myself and I drove a Chevy Sonic in addition to a Ford Fiesta through the last 7 years as daily drivers. That's a myth a lot of people try to perpetuate that sub-compact cars can't be operated comfortably by tall people.
How about sitting in the back seat?
I don't think any car can be operated comfortably sitting in the back seat, no matter how tall you are.
Have you looked at the Audi A8 or the Toyota Avalon or Buick Lacrosse?
If anything,
operating/driving the vehicle would be even harder in a longer car. "Don't worry about backseat space if you are going to be the driver almost all the time" is what I think he is trying to say.
Quote from: ozarkman417 on September 08, 2019, 01:16:17 PM
Quote from: mrhappy1261 on September 08, 2019, 12:33:13 PM
Quote from: Scott5114 on September 08, 2019, 04:12:31 AM
Quote from: mrhappy1261 on August 24, 2019, 07:00:07 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on August 24, 2019, 06:56:49 PM
I'm 6'1 myself and I drove a Chevy Sonic in addition to a Ford Fiesta through the last 7 years as daily drivers. That's a myth a lot of people try to perpetuate that sub-compact cars can't be operated comfortably by tall people.
How about sitting in the back seat?
I don't think any car can be operated comfortably sitting in the back seat, no matter how tall you are.
Have you looked at the Audi A8 or the Toyota Avalon or Buick Lacrosse?
If anything, operating/driving the vehicle would be even harder in a longer car. "Don't worry about backseat space if you are going to be the driver almost all the time" is what I think he is trying to say.
More or less that's what I was getting at. At that age the focus ought to be getting yourself to/from places as easily as possible.
Quote from: ozarkman417 on September 08, 2019, 01:16:17 PM
Quote from: mrhappy1261 on September 08, 2019, 12:33:13 PM
Quote from: Scott5114 on September 08, 2019, 04:12:31 AM
Quote from: mrhappy1261 on August 24, 2019, 07:00:07 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on August 24, 2019, 06:56:49 PM
I'm 6'1 myself and I drove a Chevy Sonic in addition to a Ford Fiesta through the last 7 years as daily drivers. That's a myth a lot of people try to perpetuate that sub-compact cars can't be operated comfortably by tall people.
How about sitting in the back seat?
I don't think any car can be operated comfortably sitting in the back seat, no matter how tall you are.
Have you looked at the Audi A8 or the Toyota Avalon or Buick Lacrosse?
If anything, operating/driving the vehicle would be even harder in a longer car. "Don't worry about backseat space if you are going to be the driver almost all the time" is what I think he is trying to say.
So, I shouldn't really be looking at full-size cars like genesis or avalon then. I'm only looking at compact and mid-size.
Quote from: ozarkman417 on September 08, 2019, 01:16:17 PM
Quote from: mrhappy1261 on September 08, 2019, 12:33:13 PM
Quote from: Scott5114 on September 08, 2019, 04:12:31 AM
Quote from: mrhappy1261 on August 24, 2019, 07:00:07 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on August 24, 2019, 06:56:49 PM
I'm 6'1 myself and I drove a Chevy Sonic in addition to a Ford Fiesta through the last 7 years as daily drivers. That's a myth a lot of people try to perpetuate that sub-compact cars can't be operated comfortably by tall people.
How about sitting in the back seat?
I don't think any car can be operated comfortably sitting in the back seat, no matter how tall you are.
Have you looked at the Audi A8 or the Toyota Avalon or Buick Lacrosse?
If anything, operating/driving the vehicle would be even harder in a longer car. "Don't worry about backseat space if you are going to be the driver almost all the time" is what I think he is trying to say.
What I am trying to say is "If you are going to drive a car, you should really consider sitting in the front seat."
Quote from: Scott5114 on September 08, 2019, 02:25:59 PM
Quote from: ozarkman417 on September 08, 2019, 01:16:17 PM
Quote from: mrhappy1261 on September 08, 2019, 12:33:13 PM
Quote from: Scott5114 on September 08, 2019, 04:12:31 AM
Quote from: mrhappy1261 on August 24, 2019, 07:00:07 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on August 24, 2019, 06:56:49 PM
I'm 6'1 myself and I drove a Chevy Sonic in addition to a Ford Fiesta through the last 7 years as daily drivers. That's a myth a lot of people try to perpetuate that sub-compact cars can't be operated comfortably by tall people.
How about sitting in the back seat?
I don't think any car can be operated comfortably sitting in the back seat, no matter how tall you are.
Have you looked at the Audi A8 or the Toyota Avalon or Buick Lacrosse?
If anything, operating/driving the vehicle would be even harder in a longer car. "Don't worry about backseat space if you are going to be the driver almost all the time" is what I think he is trying to say.
What I am trying to say is "If you are going to drive a car, you should really consider sitting in the front seat."
Unless it's a Super Stock racer you built for NHRA competition. Weight distribution usually is a huge factor.
Quote from: Scott5114 on September 08, 2019, 02:25:59 PM
Quote from: ozarkman417 on September 08, 2019, 01:16:17 PM
Quote from: mrhappy1261 on September 08, 2019, 12:33:13 PM
Quote from: Scott5114 on September 08, 2019, 04:12:31 AM
Quote from: mrhappy1261 on August 24, 2019, 07:00:07 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on August 24, 2019, 06:56:49 PM
I'm 6'1 myself and I drove a Chevy Sonic in addition to a Ford Fiesta through the last 7 years as daily drivers. That's a myth a lot of people try to perpetuate that sub-compact cars can't be operated comfortably by tall people.
How about sitting in the back seat?
I don't think any car can be operated comfortably sitting in the back seat, no matter how tall you are.
Have you looked at the Audi A8 or the Toyota Avalon or Buick Lacrosse?
If anything, operating/driving the vehicle would be even harder in a longer car. "Don't worry about backseat space if you are going to be the driver almost all the time" is what I think he is trying to say.
What I am trying to say is "If you are going to drive a car, you should really consider sitting in the front seat."
Well with a Nissan Versa, if i'm the only one sitting in the front seat i'm fine. but if i sit in the back, the legroom is ok, but the headroom is a little cramped for me. Even with an Acura TSX i'm alright driving it. My mentor has one and I had fun driving it! I driven my brothers 2011 Toyota Corolla and it wasn't that bad, really. So I kind of agree you on that one, but if you have many people wanting to ride with you, then I think you will need a larger car.
Quote from: mrhappy1261 on September 08, 2019, 02:39:00 PM
Quote from: Scott5114 on September 08, 2019, 02:25:59 PM
Quote from: ozarkman417 on September 08, 2019, 01:16:17 PM
Quote from: mrhappy1261 on September 08, 2019, 12:33:13 PM
Quote from: Scott5114 on September 08, 2019, 04:12:31 AM
Quote from: mrhappy1261 on August 24, 2019, 07:00:07 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on August 24, 2019, 06:56:49 PM
I'm 6'1 myself and I drove a Chevy Sonic in addition to a Ford Fiesta through the last 7 years as daily drivers. That's a myth a lot of people try to perpetuate that sub-compact cars can't be operated comfortably by tall people.
How about sitting in the back seat?
I don't think any car can be operated comfortably sitting in the back seat, no matter how tall you are.
Have you looked at the Audi A8 or the Toyota Avalon or Buick Lacrosse?
If anything, operating/driving the vehicle would be even harder in a longer car. "Don't worry about backseat space if you are going to be the driver almost all the time" is what I think he is trying to say.
What I am trying to say is "If you are going to drive a car, you should really consider sitting in the front seat."
Well with a Nissan Versa, if i'm the only one sitting in the front seat i'm fine. but if i sit in the back, the legroom is ok, but the headroom is a little cramped for me. Even with an Acura TSX i'm alright driving it. My mentor has one and I had fun driving it! I driven my brothers 2011 Toyota Corolla and it wasn't that bad, really. So I kind of agree you on that one, but if you have many people wanting to ride with you, then I think you will need a larger car.
But if you build your car out to a racer and can do donuts in the parking lot you'll be the coolest kid at school...or you would have been 2/3 decades ago.
Regarding full size cars if you aim for the Grandpa Sedans you might have some luck grabbing a deal. Cars like the Impala and Avalon generally lose a lot of their value over 5 years which means you might find a lightly used one for a good price. I briefly had a 97 Deville I picked up in 02 for $9,000 with 80,000 miles on it. The only problems that car had was a bad ride control chip and it was in need of a good polish. I wasn't winning any style points but that car was cozy and had a ton of room. I ended up flipping it and making about $2,500 dollars on it.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on September 08, 2019, 02:43:46 PM
Quote from: mrhappy1261 on September 08, 2019, 02:39:00 PM
Quote from: Scott5114 on September 08, 2019, 02:25:59 PM
Quote from: ozarkman417 on September 08, 2019, 01:16:17 PM
Quote from: mrhappy1261 on September 08, 2019, 12:33:13 PM
Quote from: Scott5114 on September 08, 2019, 04:12:31 AM
Quote from: mrhappy1261 on August 24, 2019, 07:00:07 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on August 24, 2019, 06:56:49 PM
I'm 6'1 myself and I drove a Chevy Sonic in addition to a Ford Fiesta through the last 7 years as daily drivers. That's a myth a lot of people try to perpetuate that sub-compact cars can't be operated comfortably by tall people.
How about sitting in the back seat?
I don't think any car can be operated comfortably sitting in the back seat, no matter how tall you are.
Have you looked at the Audi A8 or the Toyota Avalon or Buick Lacrosse?
If anything, operating/driving the vehicle would be even harder in a longer car. "Don't worry about backseat space if you are going to be the driver almost all the time" is what I think he is trying to say.
What I am trying to say is "If you are going to drive a car, you should really consider sitting in the front seat."
Well with a Nissan Versa, if i'm the only one sitting in the front seat i'm fine. but if i sit in the back, the legroom is ok, but the headroom is a little cramped for me. Even with an Acura TSX i'm alright driving it. My mentor has one and I had fun driving it! I driven my brothers 2011 Toyota Corolla and it wasn't that bad, really. So I kind of agree you on that one, but if you have many people wanting to ride with you, then I think you will need a larger car.
But if you build your car out to a racer and can do donuts in the parking lot you'll be the coolest kid at school...or you would have been 2/3 decades ago.
Regarding full size cars if you aim for the Grandpa Sedans you might have some luck grabbing a deal. Cars like the Impala and Avalon generally lose a lot of their value over 5 years which means you might find a lightly used one for a good price. I briefly had a 97 Deville I picked up in 02 for $9,000 with 80,000 miles on it. The only problems that car had was a bad ride control chip and it was in need of a good polish. I wasn't winning any style points but that car was cozy and had a ton of room. I ended up flipping it and making about $2,500 dollars on it.
Not really that good, bro. So you're saying full-size cars are dying now? I love looking at the Avalons over the Camrys. You seriously damaged your car and you got that much money for it? I'm sure it wasn't badly damaged if you flipped it. Because if it was badly damaged I'm sure you would get NOTHING out of it.
Quote from: mrhappy1261 on September 08, 2019, 02:57:10 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on September 08, 2019, 02:43:46 PM
Quote from: mrhappy1261 on September 08, 2019, 02:39:00 PM
Quote from: Scott5114 on September 08, 2019, 02:25:59 PM
Quote from: ozarkman417 on September 08, 2019, 01:16:17 PM
Quote from: mrhappy1261 on September 08, 2019, 12:33:13 PM
Quote from: Scott5114 on September 08, 2019, 04:12:31 AM
Quote from: mrhappy1261 on August 24, 2019, 07:00:07 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on August 24, 2019, 06:56:49 PM
I'm 6'1 myself and I drove a Chevy Sonic in addition to a Ford Fiesta through the last 7 years as daily drivers. That's a myth a lot of people try to perpetuate that sub-compact cars can't be operated comfortably by tall people.
How about sitting in the back seat?
I don't think any car can be operated comfortably sitting in the back seat, no matter how tall you are.
Have you looked at the Audi A8 or the Toyota Avalon or Buick Lacrosse?
If anything, operating/driving the vehicle would be even harder in a longer car. "Don't worry about backseat space if you are going to be the driver almost all the time" is what I think he is trying to say.
What I am trying to say is "If you are going to drive a car, you should really consider sitting in the front seat."
Well with a Nissan Versa, if i'm the only one sitting in the front seat i'm fine. but if i sit in the back, the legroom is ok, but the headroom is a little cramped for me. Even with an Acura TSX i'm alright driving it. My mentor has one and I had fun driving it! I driven my brothers 2011 Toyota Corolla and it wasn't that bad, really. So I kind of agree you on that one, but if you have many people wanting to ride with you, then I think you will need a larger car.
But if you build your car out to a racer and can do donuts in the parking lot you'll be the coolest kid at school...or you would have been 2/3 decades ago.
Regarding full size cars if you aim for the Grandpa Sedans you might have some luck grabbing a deal. Cars like the Impala and Avalon generally lose a lot of their value over 5 years which means you might find a lightly used one for a good price. I briefly had a 97 Deville I picked up in 02 for $9,000 with 80,000 miles on it. The only problems that car had was a bad ride control chip and it was in need of a good polish. I wasn't winning any style points but that car was cozy and had a ton of room. I ended up flipping it and making about $2,500 dollars on it.
Not really that good, bro. So you're saying full-size cars are dying now? I love looking at the Avalons over the Camrys. You seriously damaged your car and you got that much money for it? I'm sure it wasn't badly damaged if you flipped it. Because if it was badly damaged I'm sure you would get NOTHING out of it.
I bought the car when it had that damage on it. The guy who was selling it wanted $10,500 for it and I talked him down. The damage wasn't serious and only took a couple weekends to repair in my garage. I repainted the rear bumper, installed the replacement sensor it needed and just did a good through buff to clear up the paint. Back then I had a side detail business that I did for extra money. It was a piece of cake to do, all I really had to get was OEM paint and a sensor from the local Cadillac dealer. Not having to pay anyone for shop labor netted more profit. It didn't hurt that I could have patience selling the Deville whereas the previous owner wanted to dump it.
Big cars aren't dying they've essentially been dead as a big market demographic for decades. The market share for big sedans and personally luxury drops have really dropped to a niche demographic. Cars like the Avalon appeal mainly to an older generation which is why they are a tough sell on the used car market since they lose value fast. That's why I said you can find some really good deals if you're willing to go for a full size car. Now you'll suffer on the back in terms of fuel economy and getting around small places but it definitely is a better place to look for extra carrying room over mid-size or CUV on the used car market.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on September 08, 2019, 03:14:23 PM
Quote from: mrhappy1261 on September 08, 2019, 02:57:10 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on September 08, 2019, 02:43:46 PM
Quote from: mrhappy1261 on September 08, 2019, 02:39:00 PM
Quote from: Scott5114 on September 08, 2019, 02:25:59 PM
Quote from: ozarkman417 on September 08, 2019, 01:16:17 PM
Quote from: mrhappy1261 on September 08, 2019, 12:33:13 PM
Quote from: Scott5114 on September 08, 2019, 04:12:31 AM
Quote from: mrhappy1261 on August 24, 2019, 07:00:07 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on August 24, 2019, 06:56:49 PM
I'm 6'1 myself and I drove a Chevy Sonic in addition to a Ford Fiesta through the last 7 years as daily drivers. That's a myth a lot of people try to perpetuate that sub-compact cars can't be operated comfortably by tall people.
How about sitting in the back seat?
I don't think any car can be operated comfortably sitting in the back seat, no matter how tall you are.
Have you looked at the Audi A8 or the Toyota Avalon or Buick Lacrosse?
If anything, operating/driving the vehicle would be even harder in a longer car. "Don't worry about backseat space if you are going to be the driver almost all the time" is what I think he is trying to say.
What I am trying to say is "If you are going to drive a car, you should really consider sitting in the front seat."
Well with a Nissan Versa, if i'm the only one sitting in the front seat i'm fine. but if i sit in the back, the legroom is ok, but the headroom is a little cramped for me. Even with an Acura TSX i'm alright driving it. My mentor has one and I had fun driving it! I driven my brothers 2011 Toyota Corolla and it wasn't that bad, really. So I kind of agree you on that one, but if you have many people wanting to ride with you, then I think you will need a larger car.
But if you build your car out to a racer and can do donuts in the parking lot you'll be the coolest kid at school...or you would have been 2/3 decades ago.
Regarding full size cars if you aim for the Grandpa Sedans you might have some luck grabbing a deal. Cars like the Impala and Avalon generally lose a lot of their value over 5 years which means you might find a lightly used one for a good price. I briefly had a 97 Deville I picked up in 02 for $9,000 with 80,000 miles on it. The only problems that car had was a bad ride control chip and it was in need of a good polish. I wasn't winning any style points but that car was cozy and had a ton of room. I ended up flipping it and making about $2,500 dollars on it.
Not really that good, bro. So you're saying full-size cars are dying now? I love looking at the Avalons over the Camrys. You seriously damaged your car and you got that much money for it? I'm sure it wasn't badly damaged if you flipped it. Because if it was badly damaged I'm sure you would get NOTHING out of it.
I bought the car when it had that damage on it. The guy who was selling it wanted $10,500 for it and I talked him down. The damage wasn't serious and only took a couple weekends to repair in my garage. I repainted the rear bumper, installed the replacement sensor it needed and just did a good through buff to clear up the paint. Back then I had a side detail business that I did for extra money. It was a piece of cake to do, all I really had to get was OEM paint and a sensor from the local Cadillac dealer. Not having to pay anyone for shop labor netted more profit. It didn't hurt that I could have patience selling the Deville whereas the previous owner wanted to dump it.
Big cars aren't dying they've essentially been dead as a big market demographic for decades. The market share for big sedans and personally luxury drops have really dropped to a niche demographic. Cars like the Avalon appeal mainly to an older generation which is why they are a tough sell on the used car market since they lose value fast. That's why I said you can find some really good deals if you're willing to go for a full size car. Now you'll suffer on the back in terms of fuel economy and getting around small places but it definitely is a better place to look for extra carrying room over mid-size or CUV on the used car market.
When you bought the car it had damage on it? Interesting. I'm sure many people that have a first car WILL have damage on it but it's not always. People try to look for an older sturdy nice low mileage first car rather than a newer car with more miles and it's about the same price. Unless you want those extra tech features, go ahead. It's worth it to have fun, but it's not necessary. You got L, LE, SE, XLE, XSE for the Camry, and for the Accord, LX, Sport, EX, EX-L, and Touring. My teacher wants me to have a base model car since it's the cheapest and I don't need the extra stuff really, unless you are spoiled and just want the extra stuff. The only stuff i really like is leather seats and SiriusXM. I would like to find a car that's a really good deal! Here where i live, it's harder. But in New Jersey, it's easier because you got way more choices up there.
Try going on Carfax.com or Carmax and you will see one of the websites is cheap and the other is expensive. Most full-size cars are 6 cylinder (Volvo has four cylinders now), and you can go up to 8, but it's deteriorating as newer cars are getting made. BMW still uses 8 cylinders on their SUVs: X5 and X7, and Mercedes just stopped producing 8 cylinders and you can only do 4 or 6. I was born to drive and be in roomy cars, really, my parents like roomy cars. They don't like cramped cars because one of them has back problems.
Quote from: mrhappy1261 on September 08, 2019, 03:28:59 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on September 08, 2019, 03:14:23 PM
Quote from: mrhappy1261 on September 08, 2019, 02:57:10 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on September 08, 2019, 02:43:46 PM
Quote from: mrhappy1261 on September 08, 2019, 02:39:00 PM
Quote from: Scott5114 on September 08, 2019, 02:25:59 PM
Quote from: ozarkman417 on September 08, 2019, 01:16:17 PM
Quote from: mrhappy1261 on September 08, 2019, 12:33:13 PM
Quote from: Scott5114 on September 08, 2019, 04:12:31 AM
Quote from: mrhappy1261 on August 24, 2019, 07:00:07 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on August 24, 2019, 06:56:49 PM
I'm 6'1 myself and I drove a Chevy Sonic in addition to a Ford Fiesta through the last 7 years as daily drivers. That's a myth a lot of people try to perpetuate that sub-compact cars can't be operated comfortably by tall people.
How about sitting in the back seat?
I don't think any car can be operated comfortably sitting in the back seat, no matter how tall you are.
Have you looked at the Audi A8 or the Toyota Avalon or Buick Lacrosse?
If anything, operating/driving the vehicle would be even harder in a longer car. "Don't worry about backseat space if you are going to be the driver almost all the time" is what I think he is trying to say.
What I am trying to say is "If you are going to drive a car, you should really consider sitting in the front seat."
Well with a Nissan Versa, if i'm the only one sitting in the front seat i'm fine. but if i sit in the back, the legroom is ok, but the headroom is a little cramped for me. Even with an Acura TSX i'm alright driving it. My mentor has one and I had fun driving it! I driven my brothers 2011 Toyota Corolla and it wasn't that bad, really. So I kind of agree you on that one, but if you have many people wanting to ride with you, then I think you will need a larger car.
But if you build your car out to a racer and can do donuts in the parking lot you'll be the coolest kid at school...or you would have been 2/3 decades ago.
Regarding full size cars if you aim for the Grandpa Sedans you might have some luck grabbing a deal. Cars like the Impala and Avalon generally lose a lot of their value over 5 years which means you might find a lightly used one for a good price. I briefly had a 97 Deville I picked up in 02 for $9,000 with 80,000 miles on it. The only problems that car had was a bad ride control chip and it was in need of a good polish. I wasn't winning any style points but that car was cozy and had a ton of room. I ended up flipping it and making about $2,500 dollars on it.
Not really that good, bro. So you're saying full-size cars are dying now? I love looking at the Avalons over the Camrys. You seriously damaged your car and you got that much money for it? I'm sure it wasn't badly damaged if you flipped it. Because if it was badly damaged I'm sure you would get NOTHING out of it.
I bought the car when it had that damage on it. The guy who was selling it wanted $10,500 for it and I talked him down. The damage wasn't serious and only took a couple weekends to repair in my garage. I repainted the rear bumper, installed the replacement sensor it needed and just did a good through buff to clear up the paint. Back then I had a side detail business that I did for extra money. It was a piece of cake to do, all I really had to get was OEM paint and a sensor from the local Cadillac dealer. Not having to pay anyone for shop labor netted more profit. It didn't hurt that I could have patience selling the Deville whereas the previous owner wanted to dump it.
Big cars aren't dying they've essentially been dead as a big market demographic for decades. The market share for big sedans and personally luxury drops have really dropped to a niche demographic. Cars like the Avalon appeal mainly to an older generation which is why they are a tough sell on the used car market since they lose value fast. That's why I said you can find some really good deals if you're willing to go for a full size car. Now you'll suffer on the back in terms of fuel economy and getting around small places but it definitely is a better place to look for extra carrying room over mid-size or CUV on the used car market.
When you bought the car it had damage on it? Interesting. I'm sure many people that have a first car WILL have damage on it but it's not always. People try to look for an older sturdy nice low mileage first car rather than a newer car with more miles and it's about the same price. Unless you want those extra tech features, go ahead. It's worth it to have fun, but it's not necessary. You got L, LE, SE, XLE, XSE for the Camry, and for the Accord, LX, Sport, EX, EX-L, and Touring. My teacher wants me to have a base model car since it's the cheapest and I don't need the extra stuff really, unless you are spoiled and just want the extra stuff. The only stuff i really like is leather seats and SiriusXM. I would like to find a car that's a really good deal! Here where i live, it's harder. But in New Jersey, it's easier because you got way more choices up there.
Try going on Carfax.com or Carmax and you will see one of the websites is cheap and the other is expensive. Most full-size cars are 6 cylinder (Volvo has four cylinders now), and you can go up to 8, but it's deteriorating as newer cars are getting made. BMW still uses 8 cylinders on their SUVs: X5 and X7, and Mercedes just stopped producing 8 cylinders and you can only do 4 or 6. I was born to drive and be in roomy cars, really, my parents like roomy cars. They don't like cramped cars because one of them has back problems.
Like I said the damage was minor and was mostly from owner neglect. If that car ended up on a used car lot they probably would have just sold it as is. It wasn't like I was replacing a frame member or really even a body panel. Bumpers are the easiest part of a car to repaint since they aren't metal and generally don't have clear coat.
There is a huge difference over stuff like a Toyota Avalon versus a BMW 7 Series, might want to steer those expectations out full luxury brand territory at your age. The 8 cylinder cars getting replaced with more efficient 6 cylinders just as much as 6 cylinders are being replaced by 4 cylinders. That's just progression of more efficient engine technology. Personally I'm not an options guy, I have a base Impreza and a Challenger Scat Pack with no additional options.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on September 08, 2019, 03:39:25 PM
Quote from: mrhappy1261 on September 08, 2019, 03:28:59 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on September 08, 2019, 03:14:23 PM
Quote from: mrhappy1261 on September 08, 2019, 02:57:10 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on September 08, 2019, 02:43:46 PM
Quote from: mrhappy1261 on September 08, 2019, 02:39:00 PM
Quote from: Scott5114 on September 08, 2019, 02:25:59 PM
Quote from: ozarkman417 on September 08, 2019, 01:16:17 PM
Quote from: mrhappy1261 on September 08, 2019, 12:33:13 PM
Quote from: Scott5114 on September 08, 2019, 04:12:31 AM
Quote from: mrhappy1261 on August 24, 2019, 07:00:07 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on August 24, 2019, 06:56:49 PM
I'm 6'1 myself and I drove a Chevy Sonic in addition to a Ford Fiesta through the last 7 years as daily drivers. That's a myth a lot of people try to perpetuate that sub-compact cars can't be operated comfortably by tall people.
How about sitting in the back seat?
I don't think any car can be operated comfortably sitting in the back seat, no matter how tall you are.
Have you looked at the Audi A8 or the Toyota Avalon or Buick Lacrosse?
If anything, operating/driving the vehicle would be even harder in a longer car. "Don't worry about backseat space if you are going to be the driver almost all the time" is what I think he is trying to say.
What I am trying to say is "If you are going to drive a car, you should really consider sitting in the front seat."
Well with a Nissan Versa, if i'm the only one sitting in the front seat i'm fine. but if i sit in the back, the legroom is ok, but the headroom is a little cramped for me. Even with an Acura TSX i'm alright driving it. My mentor has one and I had fun driving it! I driven my brothers 2011 Toyota Corolla and it wasn't that bad, really. So I kind of agree you on that one, but if you have many people wanting to ride with you, then I think you will need a larger car.
But if you build your car out to a racer and can do donuts in the parking lot you'll be the coolest kid at school...or you would have been 2/3 decades ago.
Regarding full size cars if you aim for the Grandpa Sedans you might have some luck grabbing a deal. Cars like the Impala and Avalon generally lose a lot of their value over 5 years which means you might find a lightly used one for a good price. I briefly had a 97 Deville I picked up in 02 for $9,000 with 80,000 miles on it. The only problems that car had was a bad ride control chip and it was in need of a good polish. I wasn't winning any style points but that car was cozy and had a ton of room. I ended up flipping it and making about $2,500 dollars on it.
Not really that good, bro. So you're saying full-size cars are dying now? I love looking at the Avalons over the Camrys. You seriously damaged your car and you got that much money for it? I'm sure it wasn't badly damaged if you flipped it. Because if it was badly damaged I'm sure you would get NOTHING out of it.
I bought the car when it had that damage on it. The guy who was selling it wanted $10,500 for it and I talked him down. The damage wasn't serious and only took a couple weekends to repair in my garage. I repainted the rear bumper, installed the replacement sensor it needed and just did a good through buff to clear up the paint. Back then I had a side detail business that I did for extra money. It was a piece of cake to do, all I really had to get was OEM paint and a sensor from the local Cadillac dealer. Not having to pay anyone for shop labor netted more profit. It didn't hurt that I could have patience selling the Deville whereas the previous owner wanted to dump it.
Big cars aren't dying they've essentially been dead as a big market demographic for decades. The market share for big sedans and personally luxury drops have really dropped to a niche demographic. Cars like the Avalon appeal mainly to an older generation which is why they are a tough sell on the used car market since they lose value fast. That's why I said you can find some really good deals if you're willing to go for a full size car. Now you'll suffer on the back in terms of fuel economy and getting around small places but it definitely is a better place to look for extra carrying room over mid-size or CUV on the used car market.
When you bought the car it had damage on it? Interesting. I'm sure many people that have a first car WILL have damage on it but it's not always. People try to look for an older sturdy nice low mileage first car rather than a newer car with more miles and it's about the same price. Unless you want those extra tech features, go ahead. It's worth it to have fun, but it's not necessary. You got L, LE, SE, XLE, XSE for the Camry, and for the Accord, LX, Sport, EX, EX-L, and Touring. My teacher wants me to have a base model car since it's the cheapest and I don't need the extra stuff really, unless you are spoiled and just want the extra stuff. The only stuff i really like is leather seats and SiriusXM. I would like to find a car that's a really good deal! Here where i live, it's harder. But in New Jersey, it's easier because you got way more choices up there.
Try going on Carfax.com or Carmax and you will see one of the websites is cheap and the other is expensive. Most full-size cars are 6 cylinder (Volvo has four cylinders now), and you can go up to 8, but it's deteriorating as newer cars are getting made. BMW still uses 8 cylinders on their SUVs: X5 and X7, and Mercedes just stopped producing 8 cylinders and you can only do 4 or 6. I was born to drive and be in roomy cars, really, my parents like roomy cars. They don't like cramped cars because one of them has back problems.
Like I said the damage was minor and was mostly from owner neglect. If that car ended up on a used car lot they probably would have just sold it as is. It wasn't like I was replacing a frame member or really even a body panel. Bumpers are the easiest part of a car to repaint since they aren't metal and generally don't have clear coat.
There is a huge difference over stuff like a Toyota Avalon versus a BMW 7 Series, might want to steer those expectations out full luxury brand territory at your age. The 8 cylinder cars getting replaced with more efficient 6 cylinders just as much as 6 cylinders are being replaced by 4 cylinders. That's just progression of more efficient engine technology. Personally I'm not an options guy, I have a base Impreza and a Challenger Scat Pack with no additional options.
Yeah, one time I was looking at an Acura TL and/or Acura TSX and I was thinking that shouldn't do really. For me, I should really be looking at a base model Accord or base model Camry from 2008-2012. it's not going to be fun to drive really, since it will most likely have steel wheels. But, you can always upgrade to alloy if you want to, however, steel is better in the winter. I'm really looking at Toyota and Honda, but i'm fine with Hyundai, VW, and Ford too. What do you think about the sporty trims like the SE? Do you think those will be fun and will do for a first car?
Quote from: J N Winkler on September 08, 2019, 12:00:01 PM
Alloy wheels are considered more stylish and upscale than steel wheels, and if they are designed so that they actually weigh less than steel wheels, they offer better suspension performance because they reduce unsprung weight. But they are also more fragile because the finish is protected by a coating that is susceptible to dulling and various forms of chemical and mechanical attack.
...
I know a few people who insist on steelies (as well as minimum option provision) for vehicles that they buy new to use as daily drivers. I understand the philosophy behind such an approach, but before I followed it myself, I would want to ensure that the cheaper trim offered satisfactory NVH characteristics.
In British Columbia, where M+S tires are required about half the year (except in the Lower Mainland and along some of the warmer coastal areas), the vast majority of drivers use steelies on these wheels, in lieu of spending extra on a set of rims for the winter tires. During the winter times, it's easy to spot a vehicle from BC, as it's usually the one with steelies.
Personally, despite the lack of protection, I do actually enjoy the look. There is a certain look that is common around here during the winter: a hatchback or wagon with steelies (and winter tires), and a roof-rack with some equipment on it. Mostly because the weather in the urban areas is usually not snowy, so there's no point in purchasing a vehicle that was purpose-built for the snow...just adapt a regular one!
Quote from: jakeroot on September 08, 2019, 11:31:09 PM
Quote from: J N Winkler on September 08, 2019, 12:00:01 PM
Alloy wheels are considered more stylish and upscale than steel wheels, and if they are designed so that they actually weigh less than steel wheels, they offer better suspension performance because they reduce unsprung weight. But they are also more fragile because the finish is protected by a coating that is susceptible to dulling and various forms of chemical and mechanical attack.
...
I know a few people who insist on steelies (as well as minimum option provision) for vehicles that they buy new to use as daily drivers. I understand the philosophy behind such an approach, but before I followed it myself, I would want to ensure that the cheaper trim offered satisfactory NVH characteristics.
In British Columbia, where M+S tires are required about half the year (except in the Lower Mainland and along some of the warmer coastal areas), the vast majority of drivers use steelies on these wheels, in lieu of spending extra on a set of rims for the winter tires. During the winter times, it's easy to spot a vehicle from BC, as it's usually the one with steelies.
Personally, despite the lack of protection, I do actually enjoy the look. There is a certain look that is common around here during the winter: a hatchback or wagon with steelies (and winter tires), and a roof-rack with some equipment on it. Mostly because the weather in the urban areas is usually not snowy, so there's no point in purchasing a vehicle that was purpose-built for the snow...just adapt a regular one!
I should add that one of the reasons I was find with the base Impreza's steel wheels was the fact that I use cables (Subaru models don't spec for chains) at least a handful of times each winter. Personally I really don't care if they take a beating, they kind of already have on a lot of dirt roadways in Sierra National Forest.
Quote from: mrhappy1261 on September 08, 2019, 02:39:00 PM
Quote from: Scott5114 on September 08, 2019, 02:25:59 PM
Quote from: ozarkman417 on September 08, 2019, 01:16:17 PM
Quote from: mrhappy1261 on September 08, 2019, 12:33:13 PM
Quote from: Scott5114 on September 08, 2019, 04:12:31 AM
Quote from: mrhappy1261 on August 24, 2019, 07:00:07 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on August 24, 2019, 06:56:49 PM
I'm 6'1 myself and I drove a Chevy Sonic in addition to a Ford Fiesta through the last 7 years as daily drivers. That's a myth a lot of people try to perpetuate that sub-compact cars can't be operated comfortably by tall people.
How about sitting in the back seat?
I don't think any car can be operated comfortably sitting in the back seat, no matter how tall you are.
Have you looked at the Audi A8 or the Toyota Avalon or Buick Lacrosse?
If anything, operating/driving the vehicle would be even harder in a longer car. "Don't worry about backseat space if you are going to be the driver almost all the time" is what I think he is trying to say.
What I am trying to say is "If you are going to drive a car, you should really consider sitting in the front seat."
Well with a Nissan Versa, if i'm the only one sitting in the front seat i'm fine. but if i sit in the back, the legroom is ok, but the headroom is a little cramped for me.
The joke (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/joke) is that the steering wheel is in the front so if you are sitting in the back seat you can't drive the car. It is considered funny (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/humor) because the image of someone being so tall that they sit in the back seat and reach around the driver's seat with their arms and legs to operate the steering wheel and pedals is absurd (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/surreal_humor).
Quote from: Scott5114 on September 09, 2019, 12:42:28 AM
Quote from: mrhappy1261 on September 08, 2019, 02:39:00 PM
Quote from: Scott5114 on September 08, 2019, 02:25:59 PM
Quote from: ozarkman417 on September 08, 2019, 01:16:17 PM
Quote from: mrhappy1261 on September 08, 2019, 12:33:13 PM
Quote from: Scott5114 on September 08, 2019, 04:12:31 AM
Quote from: mrhappy1261 on August 24, 2019, 07:00:07 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on August 24, 2019, 06:56:49 PM
I'm 6'1 myself and I drove a Chevy Sonic in addition to a Ford Fiesta through the last 7 years as daily drivers. That's a myth a lot of people try to perpetuate that sub-compact cars can't be operated comfortably by tall people.
How about sitting in the back seat?
I don't think any car can be operated comfortably sitting in the back seat, no matter how tall you are.
Have you looked at the Audi A8 or the Toyota Avalon or Buick Lacrosse?
If anything, operating/driving the vehicle would be even harder in a longer car. "Don't worry about backseat space if you are going to be the driver almost all the time" is what I think he is trying to say.
What I am trying to say is "If you are going to drive a car, you should really consider sitting in the front seat."
Well with a Nissan Versa, if i'm the only one sitting in the front seat i'm fine. but if i sit in the back, the legroom is ok, but the headroom is a little cramped for me.
The joke (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/joke) is that the steering wheel is in the front so if you are sitting in the back seat you can't drive the car. It is considered funny (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/humor) because the image of someone being so tall that they sit in the back seat and reach around the driver's seat with their arms and legs to operate the steering wheel and pedals is absurd (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/surreal_humor).
Yeah. I've never seen someone drive a car in the back seat! Haha
Quote from: Scott5114 on September 08, 2019, 04:12:31 AM
Quote from: mrhappy1261 on August 24, 2019, 07:00:07 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on August 24, 2019, 06:56:49 PM
I'm 6'1 myself and I drove a Chevy Sonic in addition to a Ford Fiesta through the last 7 years as daily drivers. That's a myth a lot of people try to perpetuate that sub-compact cars can't be operated comfortably by tall people.
How about sitting in the back seat?
I don't think any car can be operated comfortably sitting in the back seat, no matter how tall you are.
Unless one's
Police Academy's High Tower (Bubba Smith) with on an old 70s-vintage Honda Civic; see 1:30. :sombrero:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YRJv0qU62YE
Quote from: PHLBOS on September 09, 2019, 11:21:12 AM
Quote from: Scott5114 on September 08, 2019, 04:12:31 AM
Quote from: mrhappy1261 on August 24, 2019, 07:00:07 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on August 24, 2019, 06:56:49 PM
I'm 6'1 myself and I drove a Chevy Sonic in addition to a Ford Fiesta through the last 7 years as daily drivers. That's a myth a lot of people try to perpetuate that sub-compact cars can't be operated comfortably by tall people.
How about sitting in the back seat?
I don't think any car can be operated comfortably sitting in the back seat, no matter how tall you are.
Unless one's Police Academy's High Tower (Bubba Smith) with on an old 70s-vintage Honda Civic; see 1:30. :sombrero:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YRJv0qU62YE
Those civics are crampy as hell. I personally don't like them.
Quote from: PHLBOS on September 09, 2019, 11:21:12 AM
Quote from: Scott5114 on September 08, 2019, 04:12:31 AM
I don't think any car can be operated comfortably sitting in the back seat, no matter how tall you are.
Unless one's Police Academy's High Tower (Bubba Smith) with on an old 70s-vintage Honda Civic; see 1:30. :sombrero:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YRJv0qU62YE
I'm not as tall as Bubba Smith was, but I felt like I had to do just that with the Nissan Versa. I know a kid with a tricked-out Honda Civic from more recent times who ripped out the front seat, and he's about 6'1" or 6'2".
Needless to say, I would not call the idea of tall people being uncomfortable in subcompact cars a myth.
Quote from: D-Dey65 on September 09, 2019, 08:35:15 PMNeedless to say, I would not call the idea of tall people being uncomfortable in subcompact cars a myth.
Agreed. My brother's 6'-1" & he was very uncomfortable when he briefly drove his (now-late) mother-in-law's Toyota Yaris.
OTOH, he had no problem sitting in his 1990 Nissan Sentra coupe he owed many years ago.
Quote from: PHLBOS on September 10, 2019, 10:25:26 AM
Quote from: D-Dey65 on September 09, 2019, 08:35:15 PMNeedless to say, I would not call the idea of tall people being uncomfortable in subcompact cars a myth.
Agreed. My brother's 6'-1" & he was very uncomfortable when he briefly drove his (now-late) mother-in-law's Toyota Yaris.
OTOH, he had no problem sitting in his 1990 Nissan Sentra coupe he owed many years ago.
The sentra coupe probably can hold two people only.
Mad Magazine had a drawing of a Camry crashing into a brick wall, which they had captioned "Toyauto Slamry". I thought that was unreasonably funny as a kid.
Quote from: mrhappy1261 on September 10, 2019, 03:55:40 PM
Quote from: PHLBOS on September 10, 2019, 10:25:26 AM
Quote from: D-Dey65 on September 09, 2019, 08:35:15 PMNeedless to say, I would not call the idea of tall people being uncomfortable in subcompact cars a myth.
Agreed. My brother's 6'-1" & he was very uncomfortable when he briefly drove his (now-late) mother-in-law's Toyota Yaris.
OTOH, he had no problem sitting in his 1990 Nissan Sentra coupe he owed many years ago.
The sentra coupe probably can hold two people only.
Fear not, there hasn't been a Sentra coupe on these shores in a long time...mid-1990s?
Just some advice guys, a friend of mine recently got a brand new 2019 Toyota Camry SE. And yet she's 17 years old. I know it's over $20,000, it's her second car (as i don't know what her first car looks like), but I think it's absolute bullshit that she would get give a car that's over $20,000 grand and that's brand new. If the second car was between $10k and $15k, then it would make more sense. There is no business that a girl that's only 17 years old has business driving (or owning) a 2019 Toyota Camry.
I don't even have a car yet, haha and I wanted to share this because I found it interesting.
I say 2014-2017 would have been more appropriate rather than anything 2018 and newer.
Quote from: mrhappy1261 on September 10, 2019, 10:43:23 PM
Just some advice guys, a friend of mine recently got a brand new 2019 Toyota Camry SE. And yet she's 17 years old. I know it's over $20,000, it's her second car (as i don't know what her first car looks like), but I think it's absolute bullshit that she would get give a car that's over $20,000 grand and that's brand new. If the second car was between $10k and $15k, then it would make more sense. There is no business that a girl that's only 17 years old has business driving (or owning) a 2019 Toyota Camry.
I don't even have a car yet, haha and I wanted to share this because I found it interesting.
I say 2014-2017 would have been more appropriate rather than anything 2018 and newer.
Was it
her money, or the parent's money? If it's the parent's money, then... do they have anything better to spend it on? Being 17 (meaning only 3 years of behind-the-wheel experience), it seems strange to me that they would get rid of the first car in that short amount of time unless it was a total loss in an accident or a really old hand-me-down.
Quote from: ozarkman417 on September 10, 2019, 11:01:14 PM
Quote from: mrhappy1261 on September 10, 2019, 10:43:23 PM
Just some advice guys, a friend of mine recently got a brand new 2019 Toyota Camry SE. And yet she's 17 years old. I know it's over $20,000, it's her second car (as i don't know what her first car looks like), but I think it's absolute bullshit that she would get give a car that's over $20,000 grand and that's brand new. If the second car was between $10k and $15k, then it would make more sense. There is no business that a girl that's only 17 years old has business driving (or owning) a 2019 Toyota Camry.
I don't even have a car yet, haha and I wanted to share this because I found it interesting.
I say 2014-2017 would have been more appropriate rather than anything 2018 and newer.
Was it her money, or the parent's money? If it's the parent's money, then... do they have anything better to spend it on? Being 17 (meaning only 3 years of behind-the-wheel experience), it seems strange to me that they would get rid of the first car in that short amount of time unless it was a total loss in an accident or a really old hand-me-down.
It was her parents money i'm sure, but I don't honestly know. There's no way that a 17 year old can afford a car that's over 20 grand. And yes, it IS strange! I'm not sure how that is! Maybe her parents are rich! My brother has a 2011 Toyota Corolla and it was only $6,000 and he's 22.
Quote from: ozarkman417 on September 10, 2019, 11:01:14 PM
Being 17 (meaning only 3 years of behind-the-wheel experience)
I thought the minimum age to drive was 16, not 14.
Quote from: Verlanka on September 11, 2019, 05:35:59 AM
Quote from: ozarkman417 on September 10, 2019, 11:01:14 PM
Being 17 (meaning only 3 years of behind-the-wheel experience)
I thought the minimum age to drive was 16, not 14.
It depends on the state, or if you have a bunch of private land to drive around on.
Quote from: formulanone on September 11, 2019, 09:14:19 AM
Quote from: Verlanka on September 11, 2019, 05:35:59 AM
Quote from: ozarkman417 on September 10, 2019, 11:01:14 PM
Being 17 (meaning only 3 years of behind-the-wheel experience)
I thought the minimum age to drive was 16, not 14.
It depends on the state, or if you have a bunch of private land to drive around on.
My Dad taught me how to drive a manual transmission S10 when I was 9.' We had a huge plot of land and he was sick of hauling stuff around it himself. In Michigan I could legally drive with a learners permit at 15. My parents saw me driving as an opportunity to basically shlock over chores that they didn't want to do. For what it was worth being allowed to off road in a truck at that age was a lot of fun.
Quote from: Verlanka on September 11, 2019, 05:35:59 AM
Quote from: ozarkman417 on September 10, 2019, 11:01:14 PM
Being 17 (meaning only 3 years of behind-the-wheel experience)
I thought the minimum age to drive was 16, not 14.
In WA, you can drive at 15. By 17, you'd have at least two years of experience in. By halfway or three-quarters of the way to 18, you'd have at least 2.5 years of experience. He'd be rounding up, but I did that too :-D.
Quote from: mrhappy1261 on September 10, 2019, 10:43:23 PM
Just some advice guys, a friend of mine recently got a brand new 2019 Toyota Camry SE. And yet she's 17 years old. I know it's over $20,000, it's her second car (as i don't know what her first car looks like), but I think it's absolute bullshit that she would get give a car that's over $20,000 grand and that's brand new. If the second car was between $10k and $15k, then it would make more sense. There is no business that a girl that's only 17 years old has business driving (or owning) a 2019 Toyota Camry.
I don't even have a car yet, haha and I wanted to share this because I found it interesting.
I say 2014-2017 would have been more appropriate rather than anything 2018 and newer.
Everybody's situation is different. You shouldn't let that bother you.
Quote from: dlsterner on September 11, 2019, 11:38:45 PM
There is no business that a girl that's only 17 years old has business driving (or owning) a 2019 Toyota Camry...I say 2014-2017 would have been more appropriate rather than anything 2018 and newer.
In terms of safety, there's a remarkable difference between the 2019 model, and earlier models. Namely, the 2019 would have Toyota Safety Sense 2.0, and those may not. What this means is that her car would have features such as
* pre-collision braking,
* dynamic cruise control,
* lane departure control (and lane centering),
* automatic high-beam, and
* road sign assist.
Basically, her car will do a much better job of keeping her safe, and immune from classic 17-year-old errors, compared to the car you may be looking at. Plus, she can keep that car for a long time. Parents have a vested interest in their children's safety. One of the ways they go about this, is buying them a really safe car. The 2019 Camry checks that box. Plus, Toyota sells so many of those Camrys, it's not hard to find a really good deal on one. Maybe her financing is really great...maybe she co-signed and is earning credit!
Quote from: mrhappy1261 on September 10, 2019, 10:43:23 PM
Just some advice guys, a friend of mine recently got a brand new 2019 Toyota Camry SE. And yet she's 17 years old. I know it's over $20,000, it's her second car (as i don't know what her first car looks like), but I think it's absolute bullshit that she would get give a car that's over $20,000 grand and that's brand new. If the second car was between $10k and $15k, then it would make more sense. There is no business that a girl that's only 17 years old has business driving (or owning) a 2019 Toyota Camry.
I don't even have a car yet, haha and I wanted to share this because I found it interesting.
I say 2014-2017 would have been more appropriate rather than anything 2018 and newer.
A fact of life is that there's
always going to be somebody else your age who is going to have a car (or clothes, technology, home, food, et cetera) more expensive than you can afford, so you'd better get over that quickly.
Considering the depreciation gap is quite minuscule on a gently-used, late/last-model Camry, you'd probably just do better going for new and get a better interest rate.
Quote from: formulanone on September 12, 2019, 08:02:07 PM
Quote from: mrhappy1261 on September 10, 2019, 10:43:23 PM
Just some advice guys, a friend of mine recently got a brand new 2019 Toyota Camry SE. And yet she's 17 years old. I know it's over $20,000, it's her second car (as i don't know what her first car looks like), but I think it's absolute bullshit that she would get give a car that's over $20,000 grand and that's brand new. If the second car was between $10k and $15k, then it would make more sense. There is no business that a girl that's only 17 years old has business driving (or owning) a 2019 Toyota Camry.
I don't even have a car yet, haha and I wanted to share this because I found it interesting.
I say 2014-2017 would have been more appropriate rather than anything 2018 and newer.
you'd probably just do better going for new and get a better interest rate.
That's never going to happen to me, just telling you that.
My high school gives out a new Kia Soul every year and for one entry 95% attendance and for two perfect attendance is needed. I only missed one hour of school last year. Some person who everyone knows is rich got past the preliminary drawing that left only five left. I don't know who won.
SM-G965U
Quote from: ozarkman417 on September 12, 2019, 08:29:16 PM
My high school gives out a new Kia Soul every year and for one entry 95% attendance and for two perfect attendance is needed. I only missed one hour of school last year. Some person who everyone knows is rich got past the preliminary drawing that left only five left. I don't know who won.
SM-G965U
That seems like a questionable use of school funding.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on September 12, 2019, 08:39:18 PM
Quote from: ozarkman417 on September 12, 2019, 08:29:16 PM
My high school gives out a new Kia Soul every year and for one entry 95% attendance and for two perfect attendance is needed. I only missed one hour of school last year. Some person who everyone knows is rich got past the preliminary drawing that left only five left. I don't know who won.
SM-G965U
That seems like a questionable use of school funding.
The car is a donation from a local dealership from what I know.
SM-G965U
Quote from: ozarkman417 on September 12, 2019, 08:40:03 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on September 12, 2019, 08:39:18 PM
Quote from: ozarkman417 on September 12, 2019, 08:29:16 PM
My high school gives out a new Kia Soul every year and for one entry 95% attendance and for two perfect attendance is needed. I only missed one hour of school last year. Some person who everyone knows is rich got past the preliminary drawing that left only five left. I don't know who won.
SM-G965U
That seems like a questionable use of school funding.
The car is a donation from a local dealership from what I know.
SM-G965U
Private or public high school?
Quote from: Rothman on September 12, 2019, 08:43:43 PM
Quote from: ozarkman417 on September 12, 2019, 08:40:03 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on September 12, 2019, 08:39:18 PM
Quote from: ozarkman417 on September 12, 2019, 08:29:16 PM
My high school gives out a new Kia Soul every year and for one entry 95% attendance and for two perfect attendance is needed. I only missed one hour of school last year. Some person who everyone knows is rich got past the preliminary drawing that left only five left. I don't know who won.
SM-G965U
That seems like a questionable use of school funding.
The car is a donation from a local dealership from what I know.
SM-G965U
Private or public high school?
Public.
Correction: It's not just my high school that participates in the drawing, it's all five in my district. Each school has around 2,000 students so I have a one in 10,000 chance to win that car.
Also, when I was looking at the 2007-2011 Toyota Camry, the 2007-2009 models have yellow (amber) turn signals while the 2010-2011 has red. Which do you guys prefer? I may make a new thread on that, but which turn signals is better? In my opinion, I prefer yellow.
Quote from: mrhappy1261 on October 16, 2019, 02:49:53 PM
Also, when I was looking at the 2007-2011 Toyota Camry, the 2007-2009 models have yellow (amber) turn signals while the 2010-2011 has red. Which do you guys prefer? I may make a new thread on that, but which turn signals is better? In my opinion, I prefer yellow.
I prefer the old school method of signaling by hand? Brings me back to the good old days when safety was an "optional" feature on cars.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on October 16, 2019, 07:19:03 PM
Brings me back to the good old days when safety was an "optional" feature on cars.
Brings you back to the days before backup cameras weren't
mandatory. This was a very recent measure by the Federal DOT where cars sold in the US as of the 2019 model year were required to have one.
I suppose this means we won't have anymore American cars without a big screen somewhere or another.
Quote from: ozarkman417 on October 16, 2019, 08:03:40 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on October 16, 2019, 07:19:03 PM
Brings me back to the good old days when safety was an "optional" feature on cars.
Brings you back to the days before backup cameras weren't mandatory. This was a very recent measure by the Federal DOT where cars sold in the US as of the 2019 model year were required to have one.
I suppose this means we won't have anymore American cars without a big screen somewhere or another.
Hell I remember when having an air bag, rear disc brakes and ABS as standard equipment was unheard of just a few decades back. If I recall correct it wasn't even mandatory to wear a seat belt in Michigan in the back seat until some point in the 1980s. Although...my Dad (who said that it was okay) could have been full of crap, he did also say we would be cushioned by hitting the front seats of the Vista Cruiser in a crash.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on October 16, 2019, 07:19:03 PM
Brings me back to the good old days when safety was an "optional" feature on cars.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on October 16, 2019, 07:19:03 PM
Quote from: mrhappy1261 on October 16, 2019, 02:49:53 PM
Also, when I was looking at the 2007-2011 Toyota Camry, the 2007-2009 models have yellow (amber) turn signals while the 2010-2011 has red. Which do you guys prefer? I may make a new thread on that, but which turn signals is better? In my opinion, I prefer yellow.
I prefer the old school method of signaling by hand? Brings me back to the good old days when safety was an "optional" feature on cars.
Signaling on hands, that reminds me of Tex Avery's "Car of tomorrow" cartoon at 0:31.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IkM5iL8h3Do
Quote from: ozarkman417 on October 16, 2019, 08:03:40 PM
Brings you back to the days before backup cameras weren't mandatory. This was a very recent measure by the Federal DOT where cars sold in the US as of the 2019 model year were required to have one.
I suppose this means we won't have anymore American cars without a big screen somewhere or another.
We could wonder if having too much safety features might have some unintended consequences? I saw that old article from 2016 where a driving educator warms relying on technology could lead to failed test. https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/prince-edward-island/pei-driving-instructor-road-test-technology-1.3535863
Quote
Driving instructor Stewart Brookins is warning new drivers that relying too much on new technology – such as rear view cameras and blind spot monitors – could get them in trouble on their road tests.
Brookins, who is based in Summerside, P.E.I., said while the technology can be an asset, but drivers still need to shoulder check.
"Whether it's a touch screen or a camera, any of these things, number one is always that you're focused on the driving and that you're in control of that vehicle," he said.[/auote]
Quote from: ozarkman417 on October 16, 2019, 08:03:40 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on October 16, 2019, 07:19:03 PM
Brings me back to the good old days when safety was an "optional" feature on cars.
Brings you back to the days before backup cameras weren't mandatory. This was a very recent measure by the Federal DOT where cars sold in the US as of the 2019 model year were required to have one.
I suppose this means we won't have anymore American cars without a big screen somewhere or another.
FTFY. The Federal requirements are for
all cars sold in the US market
regardless of whether it's a domestic or import brand.
It's worth noting that a fair amount of newer vehicles (mid-2000s onward) manufactured
prior to backup cameras becoming standard/mandatory have absolute garbage for sight-lines/visibility (comparable to cars of the 1930s & 1940s).
Makes one appreciate the older-designed cars. From the late 50s through the early 80s, increased glass area for better visibility was often advertised as a visibility virtue of those then-new models.
Quote from: Stephane Dumas on October 16, 2019, 08:30:59 PMWe could wonder if having too much safety features might have some unintended consequences? I saw that old article from 2016 where a driving educator warms relying on technology could lead to failed test. https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/prince-edward-island/pei-driving-instructor-road-test-technology-1.3535863
Quote
Driving instructor Stewart Brookins is warning new drivers that relying too much on new technology — such as rear view cameras and blind spot monitors — could get them in trouble on their road tests.
Brookins, who is based in Summerside, P.E.I., said while the technology can be an asset, but drivers still need to shoulder check.
"Whether it's a touch screen or a camera, any of these things, number one is always that you're focused on the driving and that you're in control of that vehicle," he said.
Solution for the above. Utilize a vehicle that was designed prior to the mid-2000s for the driver's test.
New Jersey, a few years back, permitted testers to look at the camera image when backing up.
All technology, for that matter, is a chicken or the egg type thing. Many of the features are developed to make it easier on drivers to avoid crashes. Drivers want to rely on such technology to feel safer.
And then people are just idiots sometimes. I carpool with a guy that talks shit about these new features all the time...but at the same time he doesn't turn his head to look in the blind spots. At least once a month he needs to serve back into his lane not realizing there was a car next to him. I try telling him to turn his head...but he doesn't want to take his eyes off the road. I just hope that the day he merges directly into another car I'm not in the car with him.
I still have a 1994 Saturn as my daily driver partly because I can see the outer edge of the trunk lid through the rear window. That kind of visibility is much more limited in the 2005 Camry I use for roadtrips, though the wing mirrors compensate to an extent.
I have seen consumer-advocacy magazines like Consumer Reports say flat-out that it is worth buying brand-new, even with lots of usable life left in currently owned vehicles, just to access safety features like adaptive cruise control, lane-keeping assist, automatic emergency braking, and so on. I suspect some of the logic has to do with the rising cost of healthcare in the US; on a per-head basis it now costs four times as much as it did in 2000, and that in turn drives up the economic value of prevention. However, I view the fact that accidents are contingent as cutting both ways. It costs nothing not to drive like a fool, and until we have fully autonomous cars, the ensemble of passive and increasingly active safety features on new cars will probably not come close in terms of effectiveness.
Quote from: J N Winkler on October 17, 2019, 02:02:29 PM
I still have a 1994 Saturn as my daily driver partly because I can see the outer edge of the trunk lid through the rear window. That kind of visibility is much more limited in the 2005 Camry I use for roadtrips, though the wing mirrors compensate to an extent.
That's the reason why my first car, had a spoiler (factory). I didn't buy it for looks (which didn't look bad), but rather because that way I knew where the back limit of the car was (within a couple inches) when looking through the back window. Reverse sensing systems weren't an option with the car, and cameras were a thing limited to concept cars.
Quote from: J N Winkler on October 17, 2019, 02:02:29 PM
I have seen consumer-advocacy magazines like Consumer Reports say flat-out that it is worth buying brand-new, even with lots of usable life left in currently owned vehicles, just to access safety features like adaptive cruise control, lane-keeping assist, automatic emergency braking, and so on. I suspect some of the logic has to do with the rising cost of healthcare in the US; on a per-head basis it now costs four times as much as it did in 2000, and that in turn drives up the economic value of prevention. However, I view the fact that accidents are contingent as cutting both ways. It costs nothing not to drive like a fool, and until we have fully autonomous cars, the ensemble of passive and increasingly active safety features on new cars will probably not come close in terms of effectiveness.
Speaking of healthcare, that reminded me on another forum a topic about a NBC article posted in 2017 about self-driving cars who'll create donors organs shortage.
https://www.allpar.com/forums/threads/self-driving-cars-will-create-organ-shortage.166890
https://www.nbcnews.com/mach/science/can-science-curb-donor-organ-shortage-self-driving-cars-will-n719386?cid=public-rss_20170211
Quote from: DaBigE on October 17, 2019, 03:16:54 PM
Quote from: J N Winkler on October 17, 2019, 02:02:29 PM
I still have a 1994 Saturn as my daily driver partly because I can see the outer edge of the trunk lid through the rear window. That kind of visibility is much more limited in the 2005 Camry I use for roadtrips, though the wing mirrors compensate to an extent.
That's the reason why my first car, had a spoiler (factory). I didn't buy it for looks (which didn't look bad), but rather because that way I knew where the back limit of the car was (within a couple inches) when looking through the back window. Reverse sensing systems weren't an option with the car, and cameras were a thing limited to concept cars.
Cars with hatches have been a thing for quite a while. Rear glass + about 6 inches is basically it. My Golf is small, but having the rear glass be the rear end makes it extremely easy to parallel park, reverse park, etc.
I've never particularly enjoyed sedans, not just because of their weird shape, but because of the whole extra bit beyond the rear glass is too often hidden.
Quote from: jakeroot on October 17, 2019, 08:11:24 PM
Quote from: DaBigE on October 17, 2019, 03:16:54 PM
Quote from: J N Winkler on October 17, 2019, 02:02:29 PM
I still have a 1994 Saturn as my daily driver partly because I can see the outer edge of the trunk lid through the rear window. That kind of visibility is much more limited in the 2005 Camry I use for roadtrips, though the wing mirrors compensate to an extent.
That's the reason why my first car, had a spoiler (factory). I didn't buy it for looks (which didn't look bad), but rather because that way I knew where the back limit of the car was (within a couple inches) when looking through the back window. Reverse sensing systems weren't an option with the car, and cameras were a thing limited to concept cars.
Cars with hatches have been a thing for quite a while. Rear glass + about 6 inches is basically it. My Golf is small, but having the rear glass be the rear end makes it extremely easy to parallel park, reverse park, etc.
I've never particularly enjoyed sedans, not just because of their weird shape, but because of the whole extra bit beyond the rear glass is too often hidden.
The bolded parts are exactly why I didn't buy a hatch. I want to drive a car, not wear it.
Quote from: mrhappy1261 on October 16, 2019, 02:49:53 PM
Also, when I was looking at the 2007-2011 Toyota Camry, the 2007-2009 models have yellow (amber) turn signals while the 2010-2011 has red. Which do you guys prefer? I may make a new thread on that, but which turn signals is better? In my opinion, I prefer yellow.
Definitely yellow as it stands out from the brake lights. There are quite a few cars that have LED taillights but still have incandescent bulbs for the turn signals.
How about this: Turn signals mounted as the same height as the brake lights, or placed below (like on most of the new Hyundai SUVs)?
Quote from: DaBigE on October 17, 2019, 09:37:45 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on October 17, 2019, 08:11:24 PM
Quote from: DaBigE on October 17, 2019, 03:16:54 PM
Quote from: J N Winkler on October 17, 2019, 02:02:29 PM
I still have a 1994 Saturn as my daily driver partly because I can see the outer edge of the trunk lid through the rear window. That kind of visibility is much more limited in the 2005 Camry I use for roadtrips, though the wing mirrors compensate to an extent.
That's the reason why my first car, had a spoiler (factory). I didn't buy it for looks (which didn't look bad), but rather because that way I knew where the back limit of the car was (within a couple inches) when looking through the back window. Reverse sensing systems weren't an option with the car, and cameras were a thing limited to concept cars.
Cars with hatches have been a thing for quite a while. Rear glass + about 6 inches is basically it. My Golf is small, but having the rear glass be the rear end makes it extremely easy to parallel park, reverse park, etc.
I've never particularly enjoyed sedans, not just because of their weird shape, but because of the whole extra bit beyond the rear glass is too often hidden.
The bolded parts are exactly why I didn't buy a hatch. I want to drive a car, not wear it.
My Golf has more room than my sister's Jetta. Don't knock it until you've tried one...hatches have a square shape and are impressively practical
and large when necessary. But more to the point...you have something against small cars? Clearly you don't live in the city. I have to parallel park quite frequently here in the Seattle area, including every night when a I get home. I sure as hell don't want to be parallel parking a damn Brougham every night. I've sneaked into quite a few spots that others haven't been able to.
Wagons also have a square rear end, and are much larger (closer to a sedan's length but with a squared-off back end), if you're so sure that hatches are too small.
Speaking of Seattle last year I managed to reverse into the corner spot on the lowest point of the Sinking Ship garage in Pioneer Square in a Dodge Challenger. Considering the garage was full at the time I thought it was a pretty good job at backing a small car in. Seattle is one of the few cities I try to get the smallest car at the airport they have but it was either Challenger or Charger on the lot...a hatch back would have been really handy to have.
Quote from: jakeroot on October 18, 2019, 12:42:31 AM
Quote from: DaBigE on October 17, 2019, 09:37:45 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on October 17, 2019, 08:11:24 PM
Quote from: DaBigE on October 17, 2019, 03:16:54 PM
Quote from: J N Winkler on October 17, 2019, 02:02:29 PM
I still have a 1994 Saturn as my daily driver partly because I can see the outer edge of the trunk lid through the rear window. That kind of visibility is much more limited in the 2005 Camry I use for roadtrips, though the wing mirrors compensate to an extent.
That's the reason why my first car, had a spoiler (factory). I didn't buy it for looks (which didn't look bad), but rather because that way I knew where the back limit of the car was (within a couple inches) when looking through the back window. Reverse sensing systems weren't an option with the car, and cameras were a thing limited to concept cars.
Cars with hatches have been a thing for quite a while. Rear glass + about 6 inches is basically it. My Golf is small, but having the rear glass be the rear end makes it extremely easy to parallel park, reverse park, etc.
I've never particularly enjoyed sedans, not just because of their weird shape, but because of the whole extra bit beyond the rear glass is too often hidden.
The bolded parts are exactly why I didn't buy a hatch. I want to drive a car, not wear it.
My Golf has more room than my sister's Jetta. Don't knock it until you've tried one...hatches have a square shape and are impressively practical and large when necessary. But more to the point...you have something against small cars? Clearly you don't live in the city. I have to parallel park quite frequently here in the Seattle area, including every night when a I get home. I sure as hell don't want to be parallel parking a damn Brougham every night. I've sneaked into quite a few spots that others haven't been able to.
Wagons also have a square rear end, and are much larger (closer to a sedan's length but with a squared-off back end), if you're so sure that hatches are too small.
Careful with what you assume. I don't impulse buy expensive items, and cars are no different. My wife has one (from before we were married) and I hate it. I'm a bigger person, and I need more room than what those beer cans provide (both for me and for cargo). For what it's worth, I do live in a city, and have not had a problem with parking. Do smaller cars have advantages? Yes. But in my case, the benefits of a larger car outweighed them (namely cargo room, passenger room, ground clearance, and step in height).
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on October 18, 2019, 01:07:59 AM
Speaking of Seattle last year I managed to reverse into the corner spot on the lowest point of the Sinking Ship garage in Pioneer Square in a Dodge Challenger. Considering the garage was full at the time I thought it was a pretty good job at backing a small car in. Seattle is one of the few cities I try to get the smallest car at the airport they have but it was either Challenger or Charger on the lot...a hatch back would have been really handy to have.
Having a big car here does suck. The suburban roads are fine, but city streets are quite narrow for a western metro area. I used to have an SUV, and the sightlines were great, but it sucked going around the city. Sold it off quick once I moved to the city.
Quote from: DaBigE on October 18, 2019, 09:24:30 AM
Careful with what you assume. I don't impulse buy expensive items, and cars are no different. My wife has one (from before we were married) and I hate it. I'm a bigger person, and I need more room than what those beer cans provide (both for me and for cargo). For what it's worth, I do live in a city, and have not had a problem with parking. Do smaller cars have advantages? Yes. But in my case, the benefits of a larger car outweighed them (namely cargo room, passenger room, ground clearance, and step in height).
You sound a lot like most Americans....big person = big car. I just don't understand that logic, since the vast majority of modern cars have enough adjustment to fit virtually anyone. The tallest people in the world, the Dutch, buy the VW Polo and Golf more than all other cars except three, with the Polo being #1. Surely they aren't driving around cramped? I understand our fuel prices are cheaper, so that allows us the freedom to buy bigger, but that doesn't mean you have to. Yes, bigger cars have better step-in height, more ground clearance, and more cargo room (well, SUVs and wagons...sedans do on paper, but their shape makes it impractical to use all the space at once); for me, those things are not important, as I'm young, generally live alone, and don't haul stuff all the time (I can rent a car for the few occasions where I need something gigantic).
For the record, I use my Golf part-time as a Lyft vehicle, and have yet to receive a complaint about leg room (verbally or written). I don't know how old your wife's hatchback is, but the current ones are admittedly quite large compared to older ones sized closer to maybe the Ford Festiva or Subaru Justy.
Quote from: jakeroot on October 19, 2019, 03:40:59 AM
Quote from: DaBigE on October 18, 2019, 09:24:30 AM
Careful with what you assume. I don't impulse buy expensive items, and cars are no different. My wife has one (from before we were married) and I hate it. I'm a bigger person, and I need more room than what those beer cans provide (both for me and for cargo). For what it's worth, I do live in a city, and have not had a problem with parking. Do smaller cars have advantages? Yes. But in my case, the benefits of a larger car outweighed them (namely cargo room, passenger room, ground clearance, and step in height).
You sound a lot like most Americans....big person = big car. I just don't understand that logic, since the vast majority of modern cars have enough adjustment to fit virtually anyone. The tallest people in the world, the Dutch, buy the VW Polo and Golf more than all other cars except three, with the Polo being #1. Surely they aren't driving around cramped? I understand our fuel prices are cheaper, so that allows us the freedom to buy bigger, but that doesn't mean you have to. Yes, bigger cars have better step-in height, more ground clearance, and more cargo room (well, SUVs and wagons...sedans do on paper, but their shape makes it impractical to use all the space at once); for me, those things are not important, as I'm young, generally live alone, and don't haul stuff all the time (I can rent a car for the few occasions where I need something gigantic).
For the record, I use my Golf part-time as a Lyft vehicle, and have yet to receive a complaint about leg room (verbally or written). I don't know how old your wife's hatchback is, but the current ones are admittedly quite large compared to older ones sized closer to maybe the Ford Festiva or Subaru Justy.
I'm not sure why I have to defend my purchasing decisions to you or why it matters so much to you, especially since this is getting far from the topic of a Toyota Camry, but I bought it based on
my needs and wants. The fuel economy of my small SUV is roughly the same and occasionally better than the car I traded in. My SUV is actually
shorter than the car I traded in, so parking is even less of an issue. I was tired of getting leg cramps from how low most sedans (and hatchbacks) ride. I don't have this problem (yet) but other taller people have issues with flexibility/arthritis of the knee, which cross most small vehicles off their purchase lists. Great that large people across the world buy small cars...I don't give a flying fuck about my next door neighbor's buying habits, let alone the Dutch's. If it fits their needs, that's all that matters; I'm not in the car selling business.
Quote from: DaBigE on October 19, 2019, 10:30:06 PM
I'm not sure why I have to defend my purchasing decisions to you or why it matters so much to you, especially since this is getting far from the topic of a Toyota Camry, but I bought it based on my needs and wants. The fuel economy of my small SUV is roughly the same and occasionally better than the car I traded in. My SUV is actually shorter than the car I traded in, so parking is even less of an issue. I was tired of getting leg cramps from how low most sedans (and hatchbacks) ride. I don't have this problem (yet) but other taller people have issues with flexibility/arthritis of the knee, which cross most small vehicles off their purchase lists. Great that large people across the world buy small cars...I don't give a flying fuck about my next door neighbor's buying habits, let alone the Dutch's. If it fits their needs, that's all that matters; I'm not in the car selling business.
It's not you. I'm not trying to make this personal or anything. After all, this is just a forum where we can bullshit about whatever (and I happen to like talking about cars). What ticks me off is people going "big" when they don't need to. They'll justify it this way or that way, but so often the reasons just seem silly to me. If it's for your health, go ahead! I would never argue against that; it's probably the best reason there is. If low cars are uncomfortable, obviously I wouldn't buy one either.
Here's something interesting to think about: the two tallest people I know, who are 6'7" and 6'11", drive an Accent hatchback and a Nissan Cube, respectively. If they can fit into a small car
comfortably, I'll be damned if I'm gonna let someone who's not even 6' tell me they need a truck because they're too tall for a compact. Another tall guy I know, 6'5", only finds his Civic uncomfortable because of the angle of the seat, not any lack of room.
Quote from: jakeroot on October 20, 2019, 03:28:28 PMWhat ticks me off is people going "big" when they don't need to. They'll justify it this way or that way, but so often the reasons just seem silly to me. If it's for your health, go ahead! I would never argue against that; it's probably the best reason there is. If low cars are uncomfortable, obviously I wouldn't buy one either.
I don't think it's helpful to use height as the sole measure of whether a tall person can fit comfortably in a small car or, alternately, to evaluate whether a given model of small car can accommodate the 1st-3rd and 97th-99th percentiles of the population. Leg length is another key variable, as is the extent to which seat height can be adjusted and the steepness of any incline in the seat track.
I am 5' 11" with long legs and a short trunk, and can fit comfortably in my Saturn in the nearly-upright driving position I prefer. My father is 6' 2" with shorter legs and a longer trunk, so in smaller cars he generally finds himself obliged to tilt the seat well back for adequate headroom. This is a driving position that is acceptable to him but, in my opinion, is less than ideal in terms of maintaining positive control.
We generally find one has to go above the subcompact and compact size classes to obtain seat height adjustment. In the cars that do have it, I generally find I have adequate headroom at maximum height, while my father needs the seat bottom to be significantly lower.
My personal preference is for a car fairly low to the ground since it is easier for me to lever myself into a driver's seat by grasping the steering wheel or to squat down into a passenger seat. Getting into a vehicle with a higher step-up, such as a minivan or SUV, is a more complicated maneuver since I have to climb up and duck down at the same time. I've spoken to people who report that it is actually easier for them to get older relatives (90 years old or older) with mobility limitations into first-generation Saturns rather than the much newer SUVs they also have access to.
This is very much an area in which YMMV.
Height isn't the only dimension that dictates whether a car is comfortable to drive or not. With some body proportions, a driver can run into a situation where it is impossible to comfortably fit between the steering wheel and the seat while still reaching the pedals.
Quote from: J N Winkler on October 20, 2019, 04:21:09 PM
We generally find one has to go above the subcompact and compact size classes to obtain seat height adjustment.
I've found this to be true for a long time, but I'm not sure it continues to be true. At least Volkswagens offer height adjustment across their range. My sister, who just barely cracks 5', used to have to sit on a pillow in her Civic, but her new Jetta (base model...cheapest VW you can buy) offers height adjustment for the driver. My Golf offers it for both front seats.
Quote from: J N Winkler on October 20, 2019, 04:21:09 PM
I am 5' 11" with long legs and a short trunk, and can fit comfortably in my Saturn in the nearly-upright driving position I prefer. My father is 6' 2" with shorter legs and a longer trunk, so in smaller cars he generally finds himself obliged to tilt the seat well back for adequate headroom. This is a driving position that is acceptable to him but, in my opinion, is less than ideal in terms of maintaining positive control.
I've found, in my years doing valet, that many people sit much further back from the steering wheel/pedals than I would expect. Many seats are adjusted to the point where I'm surprised people don't nod off while driving. I may find these positions awkward, as I'm going on five years with a manual transmission (where sitting closer to the pedals is a bit more ideal, for comfortable clutch operation), but it almost seems dangerous no matter what the situation. Obviously airbags are deadly, and you shouldn't sit three inches from the steering wheel, but I have to wonder what role sitting too far back may have played in single-vehicle accidents, or even multiple vehicle accidents.
Quote from: J N Winkler on October 20, 2019, 04:21:09 PM
My personal preference is for a car fairly low to the ground since it is easier for me to lever myself into a driver's seat by grasping the steering wheel or to squat down into a passenger seat. Getting into a vehicle with a higher step-up, such as a minivan or SUV, is a more complicated maneuver since I have to climb up and duck down at the same time. I've spoken to people who report that it is actually easier for them to get older relatives (90 years old or older) with mobility limitations into first-generation Saturns rather than the much newer SUVs they also have access to.
I agree with this. Minivans seem like an excellent middleground between "falling" into smaller cars, and "climbing" into larger SUVs/trucks. I'm about 5'10", and have had to climb into trucks far more often than I would have liked in my valet years, usually driven by guys smaller than me (small dingaling syndrome??). I understand that, at least for my grandparents, my Golf has proved problematic because they have to pull themselves out of my car; they have an easier time with their minivan, as the seat level is closer to their waistline. My grandfather loves my car, just on a "fun to drive" and "efficient" level, but does admit that it is annoying to get into. Nevertheless, he prefers it over the climbing action required to enter his truck.
Quote from: Scott5114 on October 21, 2019, 01:17:30 AM
Height isn't the only dimension that dictates whether a car is comfortable to drive or not. With some body proportions, a driver can run into a situation where it is impossible to comfortably fit between the steering wheel and the seat while still reaching the pedals.
I assume you are referring to those with big...uh...stomachs? If so, yes that's understandable. Although perhaps a bit
unfortunate (unless one is pregnant).
As someone who is both tall (more than six feet) and heavy set (read: fat :-D), in both of the last two cars I've owned, I've had to have the seat nearly or entirely all of the way back to comfortably drive.
I think it's also a bit much to think that seat position has anything to do with accident rates.
Quote from: MNHighwayMan on October 21, 2019, 02:42:39 AM
I think it's also a bit much to think that seat position has anything to do with accident rates.
That's the basis behind why my dad calls all sedans "death traps". Though ironically he dailyed a 3-series for the longest time.
SM-G965U
Quote from: MNHighwayMan on October 21, 2019, 02:42:39 AM
As someone who is both tall (more than six feet) and heavy set (read: fat :-D), in both of the last two cars I've owned, I've had to have the seat nearly or entirely all of the way back to comfortably drive.
I think it's also a bit much to think that seat position has anything to do with accident rates.
Seeing how far some people sit back, I could see the door pillar being in the way of visibility when looking directly to the left.
Otherwise, while I don't know if seating position may contribute to accidents, but seating position could contribute to the severity of injuries when in an accident (ie: sitting too close to the steering wheel and the airbag deploys strongly into your face/body).
Quote from: jakeroot on October 21, 2019, 01:57:18 AM
Quote from: J N Winkler on October 20, 2019, 04:21:09 PM
My personal preference is for a car fairly low to the ground since it is easier for me to lever myself into a driver's seat by grasping the steering wheel or to squat down into a passenger seat. Getting into a vehicle with a higher step-up, such as a minivan or SUV, is a more complicated maneuver since I have to climb up and duck down at the same time. I've spoken to people who report that it is actually easier for them to get older relatives (90 years old or older) with mobility limitations into first-generation Saturns rather than the much newer SUVs they also have access to.
I agree with this. Minivans seem like an excellent middleground between "falling" into smaller cars, and "climbing" into larger SUVs/trucks. I'm about 5'10", and have had to climb into trucks far more often than I would have liked in my valet years, usually driven by guys smaller than me (small dingaling syndrome??). I understand that, at least for my grandparents, my Golf has proved problematic because they have to pull themselves out of my car; they have an easier time with their minivan, as the seat level is closer to their waistline. My grandfather loves my car, just on a "fun to drive" and "efficient" level, but does admit that it is annoying to get into. Nevertheless, he prefers it over the climbing action required to enter his truck.
My preference is a vehicle which I can slide into...not one that I have to fall into and climb up to get out of, nor one that I have to climb up to get into. That's where my current vehicle hit that sweet spot for me. If I have to climb up, it better be into a tractor or other large truck (other than a pickup).
Quote from: jakeroot on October 21, 2019, 01:57:18 AM
Quote from: Scott5114 on October 21, 2019, 01:17:30 AM
Height isn't the only dimension that dictates whether a car is comfortable to drive or not. With some body proportions, a driver can run into a situation where it is impossible to comfortably fit between the steering wheel and the seat while still reaching the pedals.
I assume you are referring to those with big...uh...stomachs? If so, yes that's understandable. Although perhaps a bit unfortunate (unless one is pregnant).
Could also be well-endowed ladies, too.
All 2020 toyota models should have android auto, including the camry, i'm sure will. That's some exciting news if people want to look at the cheaper camry over the accord, it's fine.
2018-2020 screen
(https://di-uploads-development.dealerinspire.com/toyotaofirving/uploads/2018/11/Toyota-Display-screen.png)
2021 screen
(https://s1.paultan.org/image/2020/07/2021-Toyota-Camry-XLE-facelift-9.jpg)
I guess the new design shares the newer toyota models such as the RAV4, and Corolla.
What might bother me in the 2021 design is where the air vents used to be. That might look kinda odd.
I'm kind of impressed that a thread about the Toyota Camry has made it to 8 pages.
Regarding SUVs supplanting sedans, after a couple weeks working in an auto shop I've seen more Highlanders and RAV4s (four today alone!) than I have Camrys and Corollas. I've also seen how badly the average American neglects taking care of their car...
Still looking at cars?...it's time to pick something by now.
Quote from: tolbs17 on September 16, 2020, 08:24:46 PM
What might bother me in the 2021 design is where the air vents used to be. That might look kinda odd.
After a week with a different car, you get used to things seemingly out-of-place compared to before. You'd be surprised how quickly one gets comfortable to changes out of necessity after a short while, except for rare cases of actual physical discomfort.
Quote from: formulanone on September 17, 2020, 09:50:46 AM
Still looking at cars?...it's time to pick something by now.
Quote from: tolbs17 on September 16, 2020, 08:24:46 PM
What might bother me in the 2021 design is where the air vents used to be. That might look kinda odd.
After a week with a different car, you get used to things seemingly out-of-place compared to before. You'd be surprised how quickly one gets comfortable to changes out of necessity after a short while, except for rare cases of actual physical discomfort.
I took a break now I'm back to looking since I'm about to go to college and I'm prolly gonna get one in the next 3-9 months.
Also, COVID-19 pushed everything back
Quote from: Takumi on September 16, 2020, 11:07:38 PMRegarding SUVs supplanting sedans, after a couple weeks working in an auto shop I've seen more Highlanders and RAV4s (four today alone!) than I have Camrys and Corollas. I've also seen how badly the average American neglects taking care of their car...
Have you been able to get a sense of how common it is for the oil to be changed promptly? This is something I have always wondered about for the vehicle fleet at large. I don't pretend I've changed the oil bang on time every time, but at least when I run long, it's synthetic oil in the crankcase and it never goes darker than mahogany by the time I drain it out. But when I walk in a parking lot, the oil spots are mostly black or very dark brown.
Quote from: J N Winkler on September 17, 2020, 12:08:41 PM
Quote from: Takumi on September 16, 2020, 11:07:38 PMRegarding SUVs supplanting sedans, after a couple weeks working in an auto shop I've seen more Highlanders and RAV4s (four today alone!) than I have Camrys and Corollas. I've also seen how badly the average American neglects taking care of their car...
Have you been able to get a sense of how common it is for the oil to be changed promptly? This is something I have always wondered about for the vehicle fleet at large. I don't pretend I've changed the oil bang on time every time, but at least when I run long, it's synthetic oil in the crankcase and it never goes darker than mahogany by the time I drain it out. But when I walk in a parking lot, the oil spots are mostly black or very dark brown.
Not yet, as I'm mainly front end of the shop, but I've noticed that many newer cars, including the two late-00s-designed Acuras I've owned, have service notices built into the computer that tell the driver when it's getting close to needing an oil change or other such maintenance. The two Acuras, and I assume this has since spread to Hondas in recent years, have had an oil life percentage message viewable after pushing the trip/odometer button three times. Rather, what I've seen has been more in the line of balding tires and worn brake pads, which are both more expensive to replace than an oil change and arguably just as catastrophic, if not worse, to the car and driver if they fail completely.
Quote from: Takumi on September 17, 2020, 12:29:34 PM
Quote from: J N Winkler on September 17, 2020, 12:08:41 PM
Quote from: Takumi on September 16, 2020, 11:07:38 PMRegarding SUVs supplanting sedans, after a couple weeks working in an auto shop I've seen more Highlanders and RAV4s (four today alone!) than I have Camrys and Corollas. I've also seen how badly the average American neglects taking care of their car...
Have you been able to get a sense of how common it is for the oil to be changed promptly? This is something I have always wondered about for the vehicle fleet at large. I don't pretend I've changed the oil bang on time every time, but at least when I run long, it's synthetic oil in the crankcase and it never goes darker than mahogany by the time I drain it out. But when I walk in a parking lot, the oil spots are mostly black or very dark brown.
Not yet, as I'm mainly front end of the shop, but I've noticed that many newer cars, including the two late-00s-designed Acuras I've owned, have service notices built into the computer that tell the driver when it's getting close to needing an oil change or other such maintenance. The two Acuras, and I assume this has since spread to Hondas in recent years, have had an oil life percentage message viewable after pushing the trip/odometer button three times. Rather, what I've seen has been more in the line of balding tires and worn brake pads, which are both more expensive to replace than an oil change and arguably just as catastrophic, if not worse, to the car and driver if they fail completely.
Which is why these aren't done.
Quote from: SEWIGuy on September 17, 2020, 12:31:41 PM
Quote from: Takumi on September 17, 2020, 12:29:34 PM
Quote from: J N Winkler on September 17, 2020, 12:08:41 PM
Quote from: Takumi on September 16, 2020, 11:07:38 PMRegarding SUVs supplanting sedans, after a couple weeks working in an auto shop I've seen more Highlanders and RAV4s (four today alone!) than I have Camrys and Corollas. I've also seen how badly the average American neglects taking care of their car...
Have you been able to get a sense of how common it is for the oil to be changed promptly? This is something I have always wondered about for the vehicle fleet at large. I don't pretend I've changed the oil bang on time every time, but at least when I run long, it's synthetic oil in the crankcase and it never goes darker than mahogany by the time I drain it out. But when I walk in a parking lot, the oil spots are mostly black or very dark brown.
Not yet, as I'm mainly front end of the shop, but I've noticed that many newer cars, including the two late-00s-designed Acuras I've owned, have service notices built into the computer that tell the driver when it's getting close to needing an oil change or other such maintenance. The two Acuras, and I assume this has since spread to Hondas in recent years, have had an oil life percentage message viewable after pushing the trip/odometer button three times. Rather, what I've seen has been more in the line of balding tires and worn brake pads, which are both more expensive to replace than an oil change and arguably just as catastrophic, if not worse, to the car and driver if they fail completely.
Which is why these aren't done.
I'm aware.
Quote from: Takumi on September 17, 2020, 12:29:34 PM
Not yet, as I'm mainly front end of the shop, but I've noticed that many newer cars, including the two late-00s-designed Acuras I've owned, have service notices built into the computer that tell the driver when it's getting close to needing an oil change or other such maintenance. The two Acuras, and I assume this has since spread to Hondas in recent years, have had an oil life percentage message viewable after pushing the trip/odometer button three times. Rather, what I've seen has been more in the line of balding tires and worn brake pads, which are both more expensive to replace than an oil change and arguably just as catastrophic, if not worse, to the car and driver if they fail completely.
I've owned/leased Hondas exclusively since about 2004. My 2007 Honda Ridgeline, and every vehicle since then, has had the Maintenance Minder for oil changes and other maintenance work.
Quote from: tolbs17 on September 16, 2020, 08:24:46 PM
2018-2020 screen
(https://di-uploads-development.dealerinspire.com/toyotaofirving/uploads/2018/11/Toyota-Display-screen.png)
2021 screen
(https://s1.paultan.org/image/2020/07/2021-Toyota-Camry-XLE-facelift-9.jpg)
I guess the new design shares the newer toyota models such as the RAV4, and Corolla.
What might bother me in the 2021 design is where the air vents used to be. That might look kinda odd.
How about no screens?
Its a car, not a living room.
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on September 17, 2020, 01:22:11 PM
How about no screens?
Its a car, not a living room.
This has been happening for 5-10 years now, depending on the make and model (even longer on some premium vehicles)...it's not going reverse course anytime soon.
If you're looking at new cars, you'll have to go very spartan to find vehicles without a multi-function screen on a dashboard.
My current car doesn't have a touch screen, so admittedly I like the feel of manual controls with some tactile feedback and specific noise. Though the little multifunction radio dial is a headache for navigating hundreds of albums and artists, it's mid-2000s tech that probably wasn't thinking about large collections.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on September 17, 2020, 01:07:00 PM
I've owned/leased Hondas exclusively since about 2004. My 2007 Honda Ridgeline, and every vehicle since then, has had the Maintenance Minder for oil changes and other maintenance work.
The Maintenance Minder just might be my favorite feature in my '18 Civic, quite honestly.
(Also partial to Hondas - I learned to drive stick in my dad's '99 Accord and then I was lucky enough to find a manual on the lot when I got the aforementioned Civic)
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on September 17, 2020, 01:22:11 PM
How about no screens?
Its a car, not a living room.
I have to agree...my girlfriend always rags on me for how my car has a smallish screen with buttons on either side compared to a large touchscreen in her car, but I really don't feel the need for a massive screen when I'm driving (or riding shotgun, for that matter).
The '18 Civic EX-T had a decent-sized touchscreen back when I was in the market, but I found myself preferring the more basic setup in the LX (as described above).
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on September 17, 2020, 01:22:11 PM
Quote from: tolbs17 on September 16, 2020, 08:24:46 PM
2018-2020 screen
(https://di-uploads-development.dealerinspire.com/toyotaofirving/uploads/2018/11/Toyota-Display-screen.png)
2021 screen
(https://s1.paultan.org/image/2020/07/2021-Toyota-Camry-XLE-facelift-9.jpg)
I guess the new design shares the newer toyota models such as the RAV4, and Corolla.
What might bother me in the 2021 design is where the air vents used to be. That might look kinda odd.
How about no screens?
Its a car, not a living room.
I get it, but it shows where the air vents used to be.
Quote from: formulanone on September 17, 2020, 01:31:59 PM
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on September 17, 2020, 01:22:11 PM
How about no screens?
Its a car, not a living room.
This has been happening for 5-10 years now, depending on the make and model (even longer on some premium vehicles)...it's not going reverse course anytime soon.
If you're looking at new cars, you'll have to go very spartan to find vehicles without a multi-function screen on a dashboard.
Which makes sense since any decent car has a back up camera.
Complaining about screens in new cars these days is like complaining about keys back in the day. "People should just crank the engine to start it."
Quote from: jeffandnicole on September 17, 2020, 01:07:00 PM
Quote from: Takumi on September 17, 2020, 12:29:34 PM
Not yet, as I'm mainly front end of the shop, but I've noticed that many newer cars, including the two late-00s-designed Acuras I've owned, have service notices built into the computer that tell the driver when it's getting close to needing an oil change or other such maintenance. The two Acuras, and I assume this has since spread to Hondas in recent years, have had an oil life percentage message viewable after pushing the trip/odometer button three times. Rather, what I've seen has been more in the line of balding tires and worn brake pads, which are both more expensive to replace than an oil change and arguably just as catastrophic, if not worse, to the car and driver if they fail completely.
I've owned/leased Hondas exclusively since about 2004. My 2007 Honda Ridgeline, and every vehicle since then, has had the Maintenance Minder for oil changes and other maintenance work.
My 2004 TL and my wife's 2015 TLX have that feature. My wife's 2003 RSX Type-S does not. I don't know whether pre-2004 TLs (technically "3.2TLs," as 2004 was the first year of the third-generation TL where they dropped the numbers) had that feature, but I suspect they did not because the 3G represented a pretty significant redesign in almost all ways.
2021 Nice car but clumsy design when they redid the screen.
Quote from: SEWIGuy on September 17, 2020, 01:44:24 PM
Quote from: formulanone on September 17, 2020, 01:31:59 PM
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on September 17, 2020, 01:22:11 PM
How about no screens?
Its a car, not a living room.
This has been happening for 5-10 years now, depending on the make and model (even longer on some premium vehicles)...it's not going reverse course anytime soon.
If you're looking at new cars, you'll have to go very spartan to find vehicles without a multi-function screen on a dashboard.
Which makes sense since any decent car has a back up camera.
Complaining about screens in new cars these days is like complaining about keys back in the day. "People should just crank the engine to start it."
I assume there will be a complete redesign for the 2023 model and hopefully they can fix all of that. This is just a mid-cycle refresh.
Quote from: SEWIGuy on September 17, 2020, 01:44:24 PM
Quote from: formulanone on September 17, 2020, 01:31:59 PM
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on September 17, 2020, 01:22:11 PM
How about no screens?
Its a car, not a living room.
This has been happening for 5-10 years now, depending on the make and model (even longer on some premium vehicles)...it's not going reverse course anytime soon.
If you're looking at new cars, you'll have to go very spartan to find vehicles without a multi-function screen on a dashboard.
Which makes sense since any decent car has a back up camera.
Complaining about screens in new cars these days is like complaining about keys back in the day. "People should just crank the engine to start it."
When I bought a new pickup truck in 2006, I went to some trouble to find one without a nav system so I could do without the screen. The truck didn't have a backup camera, even as an option. By the time I bought my Prius new in 2008, the backup camera was a required feature, as was the multi-function screen.
Quote from: tolbs17 on September 17, 2020, 01:46:15 PM
2021 Nice car but clumsy design when they redid the screen.
Ehh, the screen was pretty low before. Now it's closer to the dashboard and better in line with your vision of the road. Nevermind that insane level of glossy black on the old design. Before I retired from valet, I drove a few 2018 Camry rentals, and the area around the buttons that surrounded the screen was smudge-central. Mostly as a result of people trying to click one button but missing, or hitting one but having it not work.
Quote from: jakeroot on September 17, 2020, 02:40:59 PM
Quote from: tolbs17 on September 17, 2020, 01:46:15 PM
2021 Nice car but clumsy design when they redid the screen.
Ehh, the screen was pretty low before. Now it's closer to the dashboard and better in line with your vision of the road. Nevermind that insane level of glossy black on the old design. Before I retired from valet, I drove a few 2018 Camry rentals, and the area around the buttons that surrounded the screen was smudge-central. Mostly as a result of people trying to click one button but missing, or hitting one but having it not work.
So back to 2007 the screen was too low.
Quote from: tolbs17 on September 17, 2020, 02:44:27 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on September 17, 2020, 02:40:59 PM
Quote from: tolbs17 on September 17, 2020, 01:46:15 PM
2021 Nice car but clumsy design when they redid the screen.
Ehh, the screen was pretty low before. Now it's closer to the dashboard and better in line with your vision of the road. Nevermind that insane level of glossy black on the old design. Before I retired from valet, I drove a few 2018 Camry rentals, and the area around the buttons that surrounded the screen was smudge-central. Mostly as a result of people trying to click one button but missing, or hitting one but having it not work.
So back to 2007 the screen was too low.
Cars existed for 50+ years without seatbelts. Doesn't mean you can't rectify bad choices.
Sort of off-topic: Toyota has put screens above the dash before, but it mostly a stylistic choice. For example,
we my father used to have a 2006 Prius (with navigation!) that had a screen that sat above the dashboard. It also had a backup camera and bluetooth. Very ahead of its time. It also had climate control buttons on the steering wheel, and the shifter was super unusual. Totally a cool car. Wrecked by a drunk woman in Southern Illinois in 2011.
(https://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/0366/7093/products/s-l1600-10_442caf19-5f04-434b-9703-c747c156577f.jpg?v=1571438672)
Quote from: jakeroot on September 17, 2020, 03:19:57 PM
Sort of off-topic: Toyota has put screens above the dash before, but it mostly a stylistic choice. For example, we used to have a 2006 Prius (with navigation!) that had a screen that sat above the dashboard. It also had a backup camera and bluetooth. Very ahead of its time. It also had climate control buttons on the steering wheel, and the shifter was super unusual. Totally a cool car. Wrecked by a drunk woman in Southern Illinois in 2011.
For some reason, I was reading this as a collective "we" meaning the car-driving community, and generally describing the design of the vehicle rather than referring to an individual car. Then I get to the end where the design is "wrecked by a drunk woman in Southern Illinois in 2011," and I'm thinking "that is some very specific vaguing about some Toyota executive..."
Quote from: Scott5114 on September 17, 2020, 03:24:00 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on September 17, 2020, 03:19:57 PM
Sort of off-topic: Toyota has put screens above the dash before, but it mostly a stylistic choice. For example, we used to have a 2006 Prius (with navigation!) that had a screen that sat above the dashboard. It also had a backup camera and bluetooth. Very ahead of its time. It also had climate control buttons on the steering wheel, and the shifter was super unusual. Totally a cool car. Wrecked by a drunk woman in Southern Illinois in 2011.
For some reason, I was reading this as a collective "we" meaning the car-driving community, and generally describing the design of the vehicle rather than referring to an individual car. Then I get to the end where the design is "wrecked by a drunk woman in Southern Illinois in 2011," and I'm thinking "that is some very specific vaguing about some Toyota executive..."
I should probably use more specific pronouns in the future!
Speaking of Camrys, I spotted this article about a well preserved 1986 Camry. https://www.hemmings.com/stories/2020/09/20/a-well-preserved-1986-toyota-camry-is-essentially-the-playbook-for-how-to-sell-cars-to-america
It's been ages I didn't saw a first-gen Camry, here in Quebec, they've been eaten by road salt.
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on September 17, 2020, 01:22:11 PM
How about no screens?
Its a car, not a living room.
THANK you.
I can now say I"˜ve driven a Camry, and it wasn't bad. Not particularly exciting, but not even the most boring car I drove that day. (The Nissan Rogue is just, ugh, no)
My current loaner car from the mechanic is a 2004 Camry with 265k miles on the odometer. Other than a clunking sound from what's probably something broken inside a bushing or whatever, the only issues I've discovered are a non-functioning horn, some loose trim on the driver's side door that rattles in the wind, and non-functioning cruise control. Not even a check engine light, can you believe it?
Day before yesterday, I just got back from a 500 mile (round-trip) trip with the family to Springfield (MO) in it. Gotta love Toyota reliability!