Car buying

DSafetyGuy · Post by **DSafetyGuy** » Mon May 26, 2014 8:46 am

govmentchedda wrote:I am SHOCKED that someone selling a Subaru was stoned.

Even their celebrity endorsers look stoned.

Giff · Post by **Giff** » Wed May 28, 2014 8:35 am

We just leased a Ford Explorer and I really don't mind traffic as much any more.

The Sybian · Post by **The Sybian** » Mon Oct 06, 2014 2:30 pm

My wife currently has the idea that she needs an SUV, preferably with 3 rows of seating now that the kids are coming into carpooling/going places with friends age. I wasn't expecting her to want a vehicle that big, so I was researching smaller SUVs. Anyone have any suggestions for shopping? The larger SUVs really start to get expensive, and I know she won't want to finance. I also don't think she will want to drop $45K.

I have never leased before, and I am having the damnedest time getting lease pricing, or even rough estimates online. I made the mistake of looking on US News, nor realizing I was submitting bids. Within 10 minutes I received 8 e-mails and 4 phone calls inviting me to come in and look. I stopped answering the calls, and a week later, these asshats are stilling calling frequently. Anyone know of a good site to get lease estimates?

BSF21 · Post by **BSF21** » Mon Oct 06, 2014 2:32 pm

The Sybian wrote:My wife currently has the idea that she needs an SUV, preferably with 3 rows of seating now that the kids are coming into carpooling/going places with friends age. I wasn't expecting her to want a vehicle that big, so I was researching smaller SUVs. Anyone have any suggestions for shopping? The larger SUVs really start to get expensive, and I know she won't want to finance. I also don't think she will want to drop $45K.

I have never leased before, and I am having the damnedest time getting lease pricing, or even rough estimates online. I made the mistake of looking on US News, nor realizing I was submitting bids. Within 10 minutes I received 8 e-mails and 4 phone calls inviting me to come in and look. I stopped answering the calls, and a week later, these asshats are stilling calling frequently. Anyone know of a good site to get lease estimates?

Why lease in the first place? Honest question. Just never been a big fan of the idea unless having a new model year car every 2 years is important to you.

A_B · Post by **A_B** » Mon Oct 06, 2014 2:34 pm

We have a Toyota Highlander, which has a Third-row option. However, I will tell you that if you're doing more than dropping kids off, it isn't a good option for a lot of kids. There is a minimum amount of storage space in the back if you have the third row up. If you were, dropping 3-4 kids off at hockey practice, it wouldn't work.

And I am also not a huge fan of leasing. That said, I think I'd lease a car before I'd pay cash for a new vehicle.

The Sybian · Post by **The Sybian** » Mon Oct 06, 2014 2:40 pm

We've never leased, always paid cash for used cars as we refuse to finance. I haven't looked into pros and cons of leasing much. I always thought it was a bad deal, but I know so many people who do it and say it works out better.

rass · Post by **rass** » Mon Oct 06, 2014 2:42 pm

We have friends that just got (leased!) a Highlander. Two kids, 8 and 5, and she really likes it. She downgraded from a Lincoln SUV (I forget which one) after the transmission went at just under 60K.

Post by **brian** » Mon Oct 06, 2014 2:50 pm

Leasing is nice for a few reasons but there are also valid reasons to not do it:

Good

1) Can get into a new car every three years or so. You're not tied down to owning a new car for 5-8 years like you would expect if you buy.
2) You can lease a lot more car than you would be able to finance usually. (For example, I've seen leases on Jaguars and Benz's that would cost roughly $500/mo with $0 down. Even with 0 percent financing that's only going to buy you a $27,000-ish car (after tax, etc. of course)
3) You never have to worry about the vehicle not being under warranty.

Bad:

1) Mile limitations can be an issue with a lot of people. So it depends on your commute, etc.
2) Most companies are more forgiving with minor nicks, dents and scratches than you would expect, but you would be responsible out of pocket for anything that is excessive. In my experience, I've never had anything on my cars that I wasn't expecting to have to repair. In other words, I've been treated fairly I think. YMMV.
3) You're locking yourself into a "permanent" payment even if it is less than if you financed. When you buy there's eventually that "light at the end of the tunnel."

There are other reasons pro and con, but those are the big ones for me. I personally would never say "buying is stupid" or "leasing is stupid". It's all about what makes the most sense.

The Sybian · Post by **The Sybian** » Mon Oct 06, 2014 2:55 pm

rass wrote:We have friends that just got (leased!) a Highlander. Two kids, 8 and 5, and she really likes it. She downgraded from a Lincoln SUV (I forget which one) after the transmission went at just under 60K.

We looked at the Highlander, and I liked it. The kids were lobbying for a Sequoia, which is too big, IMO. My wife seemed to like the Sequoia, but I have a feeling she wouldn't feel comfortable driving a truck that big. Not even sure the bigger SUVs would fit in the garage, which is a deal breaker.

BSF21 · Post by **BSF21** » Mon Oct 06, 2014 3:22 pm

brian wrote:Leasing is nice for a few reasons but there are also valid reasons to not do it:

Good

1) Can get into a new car every three years or so. You're not tied down to owning a new car for 5-8 years like you would expect if you buy.
2) You can lease a lot more car than you would be able to finance usually. (For example, I've seen leases on Jaguars and Benz's that would cost roughly $500/mo with $0 down. Even with 0 percent financing that's only going to buy you a $27,000-ish car (after tax, etc. of course)
3) You never have to worry about the vehicle not being under warranty.

Bad:

1) Mile limitations can be an issue with a lot of people. So it depends on your commute, etc.
2) Most companies are more forgiving with minor nicks, dents and scratches than you would expect, but you would be responsible out of pocket for anything that is excessive. In my experience, I've never had anything on my cars that I wasn't expecting to have to repair. In other words, I've been treated fairly I think. YMMV.
3) You're locking yourself into a "permanent" payment even if it is less than if you financed. When you buy there's eventually that "light at the end of the tunnel."

There are other reasons pro and con, but those are the big ones for me. I personally would never say "buying is stupid" or "leasing is stupid". It's all about what makes the most sense.

Totally on board with you there. It does come down to what makes sense. Depreciation is nuts on any vehicle, but I'd be with Syb on the idea that buying (slightly) used cars and financing as little as possible makes the most sense to me. I don't want to be tied up on how much I can drive etc, and even though the depreciation sucks, you're still going to have a tangible asset at the end. Leasing is the apartment rental of the car world. Makes sense to some, but I'd rather have something tangible after making all those payments.

mister d · Post by **mister d** » Mon Oct 06, 2014 3:26 pm

I'm confused about the aversion to financing. Cars are like the lowest rate you can find, unless you're just looking to avoid monthly payments on anything and/or thinking cash only will force you to lower the total outlay.

The Sybian · Post by **The Sybian** » Mon Oct 06, 2014 3:49 pm

mister d wrote:I'm confused about the aversion to financing. Cars are like the lowest rate you can find, unless you're just looking to avoid monthly payments on anything and/or thinking cash only will force you to lower the total outlay.

I prefer not to have monthly payments, and feel there is no reason to pay interest if you don't have to. If my savings was earning significantly, financing would make sense to keep the money earning as long as the auto loan interest was lower. My wife hates debt and monthly payments, so financing would never happen.

I really don't care if my car is 3 years old, so buying used has always been my option. I tend to keep my cars until they require repairs that I can't justify compared to the value of the car. Both of my our cars are 10 years old and run perfectly. My 2005 Camry has 115,000 miles and never had a problem. My wife drives a 2005 Hyundai XG350, which also drives great and never had an issue. It has gotten dinged up over the years, so not in perfect shape. I think it has 80-85K on it. We would probably trade in hers, but I really love driving that car. It has a luxury car feel to it, and a lot of power. I do worry about both cars having major issues at the same time, so I'm thinking it's best to make a move before that happens. Which car should I trade in?

Gunpowder · Post by **Gunpowder** » Mon Oct 06, 2014 3:53 pm

Which one is worth more?

The Sybian · Post by **The Sybian** » Mon Oct 06, 2014 4:13 pm

Gunpowder wrote:Which one is worth more?

The Camry has a higher Blue Book value, even with the extra miles, and not accounting for the minor dents.

mister d · Post by **mister d** » Mon Oct 06, 2014 5:38 pm

I have a 2006 Highlander w/ almost 120K miles on it. Needs a new back bumper (if you care) and a new windshield and probably new tires but it runs nice. I'll come in under $45,000 too.

The Sybian · Post by **The Sybian** » Mon Oct 06, 2014 8:10 pm

mister d wrote:I have a 2006 Highlander w/ almost 120K miles on it. Needs a new back bumper (if you care) and a new windshield and probably new tires but it runs nice. I'll come in under $45,000 too.

I'll trade you Camry, 5,000 miles less... Think about it.

rass · Post by **rass** » Mon Jan 12, 2015 2:13 pm

Flat tire! Woo!

rass · Post by **rass** » Mon Jan 12, 2015 8:59 pm

The pointy end (of the metal thing) was sticking out of the tire. Tire off, spare on in the parking lot at work. Pick up kids at school, drive to shop, get tire plugged, drive home, spare off, tire on. I've had three flat tires in my life, and all of them in the rain.

I need a new car. Anyone care enough to talk me out of going Subaru?

devilfluff · Post by **devilfluff** » Mon Jan 12, 2015 9:38 pm

rass wrote:

The pointy end (of the metal thing) was sticking out of the tire. Tire off, spare on in the parking lot at work. Pick up kids at school, drive to shop, get tire plugged, drive home, spare off, tire on. I've had three flat tires in my life, and all of them in the rain.

I need a new car. Anyone care enough to talk me out of going Subaru?

Nope. I loved the hell out of my Subaru.

GoodKarma · Post by **GoodKarma** » Mon Jan 12, 2015 11:15 pm

devilfluff wrote:
rass wrote:

The pointy end (of the metal thing) was sticking out of the tire. Tire off, spare on in the parking lot at work. Pick up kids at school, drive to shop, get tire plugged, drive home, spare off, tire on. I've had three flat tires in my life, and all of them in the rain.

I need a new car. Anyone care enough to talk me out of going Subaru?
Nope. I loved the hell out of my Subaru.

Ditto...I have a Subaru as well...

A_B · Post by **A_B** » Mon Jan 12, 2015 11:17 pm

I feel your pain, but it's not like Subarus come with unpiercable tires. Your problem is clearly driving while raining. Save your vacation days.

mister d · Post by **mister d** » Mon Jan 12, 2015 11:54 pm

You have short fingers.

rass · Post by **rass** » Tue Jan 13, 2015 1:27 pm

Mind if I ask what you guys drive? Or more specifically, any opinions on Outback vs Forester (wife very much likes the Outback)? Probably going to start out looking at used, 2011 or newer, and the Outback is a little harder to find and little more expensive.

Rush2112 · Post by **Rush2112** » Tue Jan 13, 2015 2:41 pm

I've driven both the Outback and the Forester. I own a Forester and my parents have had Outbacks for years. Personally, I like the Forester more. Te biggest thing is a weird angle caused by where the drive train goes by the accelerator on the Outback that bothers me on long drives. Also I feel like a taller person fits in the Forester better, I have more headroom/easier sight lines in the Forester.

The Forester does have less room in the way back, so if you're traveling with kids, etc. you may need a roof box to fit all yo shit. With the seat down though it's amazing the shit you can fit. I've moved dressers, a dishwasher, a washer, and a love seat in the back of the Forester.

The Outback is longer and wider, but the two inches of height the Forester has make a difference.

DC47 · Post by **DC47** » Tue Jan 13, 2015 2:48 pm

We drive a '98 Outback. With the tires we've got on it, I've never had a better snow car. Bullet-proof winter commutes, and great for going up north.

However the duct tape holding the back side panel together is starting to show its age. So we may buy a 2015. Good reviews for this slightly changed model. Significantly better mileage. We'll look at a Forester too.

P.D.X. · Post by **P.D.X.** » Tue Jan 13, 2015 2:59 pm

I totalled a '98 outback once. Walked away with nothing but stitches, so there's that.

Rush2112 · Post by **Rush2112** » Tue Jan 13, 2015 3:27 pm

DC47 wrote:We drive a '98 Outback. With the tires we've got on it, I've never had a better snow car. Bullet-proof winter commutes, and great for going up north.

However the duct tape holding the back side panel together is starting to show its age. So we may buy a 2015. Good reviews for this slightly changed model. Significantly better mileage. We'll look at a Forester too.

My mom had a 94 Outback that she gave to my brother for a 6er of beer. Had rust on the quarter panels, he riveted Spam cans over the holes to pass inspection. As far as I know it's still traveling the back roads of the Northeast Kingdom of VT.

Also Bridgestone Blizzaks on a Subaru and you're unstoppable in the snow, only I've had that's better was my Vanagon Syncro, and that's because it's gearing was so low (same engine design, no wonder they both rule!)

rass · Post by **rass** » Tue Jan 13, 2015 4:06 pm

Thanks guys. I haven't driven either one yet, so we'll see how I see.

devilfluff · Post by **devilfluff** » Tue Jan 13, 2015 7:58 pm

The Forester is more SUVish. A bit taller, more of a true crossover.

The Outback is a station wagon with a bit more ground clearance. Should handle just a bit better. It is definitely bigger.

mister d · Post by **mister d** » Tue Jan 13, 2015 9:07 pm

Rush2112 wrote:Also Bridgestone Blizzaks on a Subaru and you're unstoppable in the snow ...

Jesus Christ. Legalize weed and everyone in Colorado is Snoop Dogg.

GoodKarma · Post by **GoodKarma** » Tue Jan 13, 2015 9:34 pm

I (mostly my wife -"my" car is a truck) have a 2011 Outback. I've driven both...devilfluff is spot on. It does seem to me the forester has less driver legroom than the outback.

Rush2112 · Post by **Rush2112** » Tue Jan 13, 2015 11:12 pm

GoodKarma wrote:I (mostly my wife -"my" car is a truck) have a 2011 Outback. I've driven both...devilfluff is spot on. It does seem to me the forester has less driver legroom than the outback.

Not to me, and I'm 6'4". I much prefer the Forester to the Outback.

sancarlos · Post by **sancarlos** » Wed Jan 14, 2015 1:12 pm

My wife drives a 2010 Ford Escape Hybrid (small suv). We've never had any problems with it, great mileage, and not a single flat tire!

Post by **brian** » Wed Jan 14, 2015 1:23 pm

Yeah, it's weird. I've never known anyone who bought a Subaru who didn't have it immediately start falling apart as soon as they drove it off the lot, yet to hear some of you guys, they're bulletproof tanks. JD Power seems to think their reliability and estimated reliability is pretty average (though the Forester did grade out well, a lot higher than the Outback).

wlu_lax6 · Post by **wlu_lax6** » Wed Jan 14, 2015 1:58 pm

brian wrote:Yeah, it's weird. I've never known anyone who bought a Subaru who didn't have it immediately start falling apart as soon as they drove it off the lot, yet to hear some of you guys, they're bulletproof tanks. JD Power seems to think their reliability and estimated reliability is pretty average (though the Forester did grade out well, a lot higher than the Outback).

Have owned a number of Subarus in my life
Started with the late 80s Subaru XT. GREAT car

Then a Legacy of this style

My dad went through several Legacy Wagons and Outback Wagons.

Here is what we noticed. Back in they day when they were made in Japan, they were GREAT cars. Then in the late 90s/early 2000s the cars started getting built in TN. Noticeable difference in quality. Especially with the heat shield rattle in my dad's car. However, I did just buy an Impreza hatchback. Have been a big fan so far.

For me bike rack installation was a big deal. Amazed at how lots of cars in that price point/style do not think about that factor and or sales staff don't know the options/approaches

DC47 · Post by **DC47** » Wed Jan 14, 2015 7:45 pm

What is 'bike rack installation?' An option you buy on a new car?

DC47 · Post by **DC47** » Wed Jan 14, 2015 7:48 pm

Our '98 Subaru Outback has required plenty of work after the first 100K miles. But not so much that I think it's a bad car. About the problems I imagine for most cars. We like it because the price was reasonable, it's the right size for our family, has the right (lack of premium) features, and it drives well in bad conditions.

I believe that this car was built in Indiana, where they still build them.

wlu_lax6 · Post by **wlu_lax6** » Wed Jan 14, 2015 9:07 pm

DC47 wrote:What is 'bike rack installation?' An option you buy on a new car?

I need a car that I can transport my bikes. So that means roof rack or trailer hitch. Thule v. Yakima and locking them on the car. it becomes way more stress and work than it should be. If I am buying a new car I don't want to hook it into the windows and trash the rubber seals. I don't want a cheap rack for the back that lets the bike scratch the back of the car. Trailer hitches can impact warranties on some cards. Factory mount setups are not available on cards.

Like I said..way more pain than it should be.

Rush2112 · Post by **Rush2112** » Thu Jan 15, 2015 12:10 am

brian wrote:Yeah, it's weird. I've never known anyone who bought a Subaru who didn't have it immediately start falling apart as soon as they drove it off the lot, yet to hear some of you guys, they're bulletproof tanks. JD Power seems to think their reliability and estimated reliability is pretty average (though the Forester did grade out well, a lot higher than the Outback).

Mine is a 2004. The only things I've done to it (besides regular maintenance) is have a valve seal changed 2 years ago, and weld in a new piece on exhaust (basically because I lived in New England.) My mom's that mentioned above has over 250K and besides being rusted is running strong.

We did have one that my family bought in the 80s that was a lemon, but I think out of the 8-10 that various members of my family have had it's the only one that had any problems.

GoodKarma · Post by **GoodKarma** » Thu Jan 15, 2015 12:59 am

Rush2112 wrote:
GoodKarma wrote:I (mostly my wife -"my" car is a truck) have a 2011 Outback. I've driven both...devilfluff is spot on. It does seem to me the forester has less driver legroom than the outback.

Not to me, and I'm 6'4". I much prefer the Forester to the Outback.

I'm 6' even and a festively-plump 270. My only complaint is thigh support...the seats are too short length-wise, which I have noticed is an issue with most cheap to mid priced Japanese models.

Regarding the Outback quality, we haven't had to do anything other than regular maintenance...had it since June of 2010 and have 63k on it. In the past eight months it got its first brake pad replacements and first new tires. Of course, now that I've put this in writing, the thing will probably blow up somewhere on interstate 70 during my drive from Montrose back to Denver on Friday.