OT: Talking Cars Tuesday - your questions!
Based on our advice thread from last week we've got lots of knowledgeable car folks on the board here. Do you have car-related questions? These could be things from "What's a car" to "We're having another kid and thinking of a bigger vehicle, anyone on the board drive X/Y/ or Z?" or things like "What kind of mileage do drivers of X get in the real world?" or "Do i need to use premium?"
I can't promise you'll get good answers, I can't promise the answers will be funny, but maybe we'll get a few of both?
Thanks! The hybrid option is a prefefnce, not a necessity. And that's for both cost and environmental reasons - it doesn't necessarily need to pay itself off in lower gas costs. But in our research, it sounds like AWD+good mileage is doable without a hybrid car (and that AWD hybrids are few and far between).
Thanks for the recommendations for good buying guides.
hybrids can be ok, but are almost impossible to find in your configuration with AWD. The big reason is that a lot of them are purely built for MPGs, so a lot of them are FWD only and a lot of a low resistant tire that will really not help you when you hit snow (need to get Blizzaks which will lower your MPGs by 2-4). Hybrids are kind of expensive for what they do as they require a gas motor and electric motor, adding weight and complexity. GM has a large line of mild hybrids available, which are stop start systems that run everything when you come to a stop.
When looking at MPGs, it is always good to look at how many miles you plan to drive a year and divide the different MPGs to see how many gallons you are truly saving. the difference between 33 and 36 MPG is much less than the difference between 17 and 20 MPG savings.
Suburu offers a large lineup of AWD cars that get good MPGs. I think the Fusion also offers good return for an AWD car. Otherwise do as Jeepinben suggests and get a small cross over. My wife's Escape gets good gas mileage and doesn't feel underpowered with the turbo 1.6 L. the CX-5 is up in power and also gets good MPGs. Good luck on your car search.
Thanks! The other factor, when it comes to smaller cars, is that I'm 6'3" and probably about 230-240. So sometimes simply fitting in the car becomes an issue, if the car is too far in the small-end of the spectrum.
God willing, we won't be driving much. But I suspect our near car-less existence that we're imagining will be tough to pull off.
AWD/4WD in whatever flavor it comes in is nice, but as we said last week, that don't help you STOP the car. Whatever car you get, I'd suggest investing in a decent set of winter tires.
Oh, don't worry, I grew up in MI. I have plenty of experience with driving in the snow. I've just been without a car for the past 4 years here in the city.
Ford Fusion Hybrid. Next question?
Edit: doh, not awd. But either way, you don't need AWD. AWD is the biggest farce perpatrated on the car buying public. save yourself thousands and get winter tires instead.
I drive on a lot of hilly, icy, roads in the winter and the AWD makes a huge difference (over FWD). That statement is just ridiculous.
Of course, stopping is a whole different matter but I'm smart enough to drive according to conditions.AWD just helps you get going in poor conditions faster, the right tires will prevent you from slipping and sliding, and as you mentioned, everyone has 4W brakes.
Unless you're trudging through deep mud or snow, AWD isn't necessary.
How would you say it does either of those things? Let's use a Jeep Cherokee as an example. Because, like most "AWD" systems today, it just drives as a front wheel drive vehicle until there's some slip.
How would 4 driving wheels help you track straighter? Or add to stability? If you're saying usin g4WD as opposed to RWD in a truck, sure. But all it's doing 99% of the time in FWD based vehicles is adding weight.
JeepinBen me and you seem I to eye quite a lot....
...wanna touch butts?
And a RWD car would have less weight for AutoX...
I'm talking about for 95% of drivers who think it'll make them safer in the snow
If a self-driving car, for which the manufacturer wrote the controlling software, runs over or into someone else due to a code defect, is the person who owns the car but is really only a passenger liable?
My answer is, 'they shouldn't be but are."
I think the mad rush to self-driving cars has entirely ignored some rather important questions, this one chiefly among them.
I think manufacturers are drastically overestimating the demand for driverless cars. Who really wants these things, and why?
Personally, I'd only consider one if I wasn't responsible for the actions of the vehicle. I want to be able to get into it completely shitfaced and have it take me to White Castle without getting a DUI. If I'm still responsible for the actions of the vehicle, I'm driving it myself.
Would open up a huge market in just the elderly. Imagine your folks don't need someone to drive them to the doctor, or grocery store, or or or...
But that goes back to my point. If they're still responsible for the actions of the car, is having one really helpful to them if they're unable to drive a regular car?
Also, the old people I know are stubborn as hell and wouldn't trust a "damn computer" to drive them around.
that is the market for driver-less cars.
get in, tell the computer, 'home robo-james', and pass out. you wake up in your driveway, nobody's hurt, and you aren't doing time in the county jail. win-win
they don't want to necessarily sell you a car, they want to sell you a ride. They then become a vertically integrated uber and make gobs of money.
signed: a guy who works on this shit
I drive everywhere. The idea of not having a car sounds insane to me. Even if I lived in a downtown area I'd still want one just for the freedom of movement it provides.
They're not going to abandon making "manually" driven cars anytime soon, they just recognize that autonomous cars are going to change the face of transportation and logistics and they don't want to get left behind.
But for rural parts of the country and even suburban parts, they still fully anticipate 2 cars per family.
the automakers don't want to be behind the curve (again, as per usual), but I just can't see the massive demand for the vehicles that everyone keeps talking about.
Again, once the technology is mature, and the driver isn't responsible for the actions of the vehicle, I could see it making sense. Especially for long-haul trucking applications.
So there goes the last middle class wage earning job a person can get without a secondary education. It'll be interesting to see what happens when 3 million truck drivers are suddenly unemployed.
Look at uber's valuation; that was the big wakeup call to every automaker and tech company. And there will still be "operator" jobs for the autnomous long haul trucks of the world. But now one driver might be able to mange a platoon of 3 trucks.
200 years from now I hope my descendants look back and say, "What the hell were they thinking when they started renting everything- software, cars, computing time, housing, etc???"
I'm shocked by how few people do the math on car and computer leases, and things like "cloud computing services". They are told it is cheaper and run with that, never bothering with even the most basic math. Example:
Have had many clients come to us and exclaim how happy they are about Adobe Creative Cloud: "It only costs $50/month!"
Me: "Oh? You used to buy an upgraded every three years for $600. Now you are paying $50/month."
They: "Yeah! $50 is cheap!"
Me: "Do the math."
They: *blank stare*
Me: "$50 per month times 12 months per year times three years."
They: *looking for calculator* no ability to do basic math in head
Me: Facepalm
They: *having located calculator and finished up with five minutes of pushing buttons* "WHAT??? This can't be right! It's three times as much!"
Me: "Congrats, you did it right."
They: "But wait, why would they do this???!?"
Me: "Because of this conversation, exactly."
I want em because it will level the playing field to a common standard.
In the daily traffic hell of Denver, it seems like a large percentage of the backups and accidents are human caused rather than any other stimulus -- those who don't know the difference between yield and merge for example or the those who camp out in the left hand lane without regard for the mile long backup behind them.
I'm hoping the technology will fix the stupidity-caused problems in transportation and make the roads safer and improve flow.
I just got back from London in Feb and March and was amazed at how a city of 9MM, a metro area of 14MM, and has a third of the roads we do here and I can actually drive through the city at rush hour. People are generally courteous, well-trained, drivers. They know how to alternate vehicles getting on and off ramps, don't wait to the last second to merge for construction or lanes which end, and technology like variable speed limits keeps the flow moving too.
In Denver, from 4 - 6 every day, 6, SIX FUCKING LANES, of traffic EACH WAY comes to a complete standstill from the Tech Center to Mile High Stadium. It's ridiculous.
Well, Great Britain seems to have the right idea. I'd be stunned if it works out like this, though. Cue the huge whining masses of giant corporations who can't be expected to produce a quality product and also can't be held responsible for the direct outcome thereof.
http://www.driverlesstransportation.com/u-k-government-driverless-cars-…
Anyone own a Ford Flex? What are your thoughts? What's the gas mileage like?
It's a more effecient Explorer. Take any ford explorer review, add an MPG and some more usable interior space, and there you are.
Usable space is key...love the idea of a third row even if we wouldn't use it all that much. My neighbor has one and I need to bug him about letting me take it for a ride. They really like it, too.
Got a Flex as a loaner car while my daily car was in the body shop, and I really liked it. The only thing was that the wheel base was a bit long, and my family lives in the city.
Great hauler if you've got kids, sports gear, dogs, etc. Drives pretty well, and not horribly underpowered. Definitely worth a look.
I have a 2014 Flex with the bigger 3.5L tow package and AWD. Normal city driving I get about 19mpg. Get around 24mpg highway if I keep it under 75.
Good info--wondered how the AWD mileage was especially.
the 3.5TT engine in the flex is awesome. You can get those puppies to crank out 600HP with a tune alone....
but also a decent family car I guess.
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
And necessary?
Why spend money on anything? (this got weird)
a $5 t-shirt will work just as well as a $100 shirt, but many people buy the latter.
Because most people don't look at it as an asset but an expense with multiple applications.
I don't get buying the BMW's/Lexus'/etc. because I figure I can get the same amount of car for a lot less money by buying a non-luxury brand, but I will typically buy new over used as I can control the maintenance and always drive whatever car I buy into the ground so I know I am going to be driving a vehicle for at least fifteen to twenty years.
The Dave Ramsey, "Never buy a new car" argument I think is problematic because he is assuming a market condition(an abundance of lightly used used vehicles) that does not necessarily hold up under scrutiny.
I drive 40 minutes into work and 40 minutes home every day. Plus vacations, family weekends etc. Probably in my vehicle 7-10 hours a week on average. Therefore, I must like the vehicle I am driving in and be comfortable.
My wife and I and kid live in Ann Arbor, and it appears to be some kind of rite of passage to own a Subaru around here - so we're currently looking at them (ok - its actually because we want a safe vehicle, larger than our civic, that's good in weather).
They seem to have a reputation for being expensive to repair/maintain...is that accurate? What about the dreaded head gasket problem that everyone talks about? Was that only on older models?
Has anyone looked at Subarus (forester or outback) and ended up getting something else? If so, what did you buy?
I think the Gasket problem is still a thing--usually between 80,000-100,000 miles. I know that my mechanic brother-in-law fixes a ton of them.
That said, everyone seems to love them until it's time for that gasket fix.
Rather than say "lots of folks in our situation have a subaru"... which one? How much space do you need? do you NEED 4WD? (For 95% of people this answer is "no". My FWD little hatchback needed a shovel once the whole winter when Chicago got 2 feet of snow 18 months ago) How much can you spend? With that info you can figure out what to cross shop the Subaru with and see what you think.
as far as the space we need, we do lots of trips around the state, and while we had stuff we liked to take before (biking, water sports), with a baby there's just so much more. we want a car that can handle all that, as well as another kid(s) at some point in the future. we test drove a cross trek, and it just doesn't seem to have enough space. plus, a real downside for me is how most cars now seem to have such poor visibility out the back with teardrop shaped windows, which was true in the crosstrek but not the outback or forester. (we also test drove a mazda cx-5, which i really liked, but had similar rear visiblity issues and had less cargo space).
as far as needing 4wd.... eh. we both have civics that are fantastic in the snow, which seems to be a result of how the weight is balanced over the car. there have been situations where higher clearance would have been helpful, and maybe 4wd? for me, it's more of a question of if subaru outback/forester ticks all the other boxes better than other cars (reliability, cargo space, availability, price) and then the 4wd is a bonus, of which we'll see how useful it is?
budget would be $15,000-20,000, looking at used, 2010 and onward.
Also, if you buy a Subaru I think you have to stop shaving your armpits. It's in the sales contract. Not sure what the rules are if you get it used.
if only i had a nickel for every time someone told us to get a minivan.... though it seems like most people who say it don't own minivans themselves.
the plan is for this to be the primary car for kids/vacation until a minivan is necessary. we currently have two older civics ('97 and '01), so when we find our unicorn of a car (did i mention i'd really like it to be a manual?), we'll get rid of the '97, keep the '01 for an in-town work commute, and then sell it once we get a minivan.
pretty sure the rule only applies to original owner. hence used.
But I have to admit that the space they offer is pretty damn appealing.
For what it's worth, I've had a couple Mazda's and they were both very reliable.
I'd say your best bet would be the CX-5. It'll be fun driving, has a manual available (not with the 4WD, but you'd be better off with the 3rd pedal). It's got lots of space. Another option would be a Golf/Jetta Wagon.
Or, if you can find one, there are some Manual Transmission Foresters out there... happy unicorn hunting!
when you say better off with the third pedal - do you mean the benefit of, say, downshifting to get up a slippery hill outweighs 4wd? i've only ever owned manuals and never had 4wd so i have no experience comparing, but i feel like i use the manual transmission in snow in ways that help me that i wouldn't be able to with an automatic - but i'm not really a car person, so i don't know if there are better words to articulate what i'm saying or if it's not as much of a benefit as i imagine it to be. and i feel like the 4wd debate is confusing - i hear people saying the majority of drivers don't need it, just get good snow tires, but there are definitely people who have it on their every day car and love it for weather conditions. are they just imagining a benefit? is there any sort of objective testing on 2wd/good tires vs 4wd?