Average new car payment $554

[Ws6]

Originally Posted by Wolf359

Originally Posted by Ws6
The sound system is cool. My cx5 has Bose, and Ive always found Bose to be very meh. HK is a step up. No thanks on air ride. My cx5 rides at least as well as my neighbor's amg43GLC. Wheel base matters, and the GLE has the advantage there, but it also wont get nearly 30mpg, will it?

Sounds like cup holders and how the door closes and the auto park (i dont ever go anywhere thay has those requirements though) are the only things Id notice aside the sound system, which I do admit is a nice thing. 3 zone CC and 3 option memory dont mean anything to me. It really sounds like a wash as I get HUD and Sport mode (fun in the mountains kindof), except the sound system, which is a legit thing I miss.

That said, I could upgrade the sound of my cx5 for far less than an under 20k mile GLE would cost and then as you said...maintenance...

The GLE350 seems a match for my cx5 feature for feature except where it has a nicer dash and displays, massage chairs, and Hey Mercedes, while my Cx5 is significantly faster. Really, its a no brainer when cost and maintenance factor in.


Umm, I don't really worry about gas mileage, plus it uses premium. Also while it has a lot of options, the whole car is of course pricey when they're new. But look at a 3-6 year old GLE and compare that price to the same CX5, it's just a little bit more. Different between massive depreciation and lower depreciation. Not really a deal when new, but decent when used. For maintenance, I get a knockoff copy of the WIS which is the workshop manuals on eBay for $6.60 and either take it to an indy or DIY. If you do maintenance at the dealer you also get killed on the price, but then again, I've seen people here claim they've spent 8k at the dealer on just a Honda.

That sucks that it needs premium. With 87 octane, the CX5 GT-R performs similar to it, and with 93 octane it performs much better. Do you use premium because you want to, or because you must?
I prefer dealer service. Why buy a Benz just to endure shade-tree mechanic amenities? I much prefer my Mazda and their latte machine, brand new loaner or taxi service if I have a place to go, free detail, blah blah blah while I wait for my $60-70 oil change, inspection, fluid top-off, etc.
Here is a picture I took this morning. It's about 1/3 daily commute + a little road trip.

I've compared this thing to everything else out there, and literally nothing comprehensively is "better" for under $50K that I can find except for the Stelvio, and I'm not able to trust FCA products, sooo...

When I wanted a replacement for my 2015 CX5, I looked at the Audi Q3, Tiguan, X1, GLC300, etc. and just nothing out there was close in features or acceleration at the same time, for even nearly similar money.

 

[Ws6]

Originally Posted by Jarlaxle
Originally Posted by fdcg27
Originally Posted by HowAboutThis
Originally Posted by madRiver
New car buying on debt does not lead to any significant wealth building an carries risk.

Wealthy people do not leverage buying on cars credit to build more wealth. People justifying debt to perform investing because they cannot afford both do.



Bingo!

But I'm grateful for those wanting loans they can barely afford because it's how we keep used car prices down...if everyone paid cash and tried to buy used, used cars would be too expensive.


Oh please!
Many of us can well afford to buy new cars so we do thereby avoiding the unknown unknowns with any used purchase.
If the seller is offering free financing with no discount for writing a check for the purchase, then only a fool would pay cash.
Not everyone is living hand to mouth and most people with a few pennies to rub together aren't spendthrifts and are financially savvy and also have solid incomes and credit scores.
I also know of nobody with any real money who would seriously consider a used daily driver.
An exotic toy, sure, but not for a daily driver.
Just doesn't make sense not to buy new if you can well afford to do so.


My uncle could cash a 7-figure check tomorrow. His daily driver is a zero-option 2WD Ranger. Toys are an F-250, a hot-rodded Dakota, & a motorcycle.



Because priorities. Tell us what your uncle's passions are. You didn't mention his massive class 3 firearm collection, airplane, or whatever...

 

[edyvw]

Mazda CX-5, new McLaren F1 of our age and time.

 

[Ws6]

Originally Posted by edyvw
Mazda CX-5, new McLaren F1 of our age and time.

Rofl! More like the Ls1 Fbody of its class. Cheaper, faster, and nicer than all the others under 50k

 

[Win]

Originally Posted by Win
... If Souter's debacle is the one I am thinking of, it served him right, and many states passed protective laws to nullify that decision, but AFAIK, my state is not one of them that did. I have not seen eminent domain used in that manner around here, but I would agree that use of it in that way is thievery.


In 2013 my state enacted a landowners Bill of Rights, A.C.A 18-15-103, in particular subpart (b)(2) relevant to Souter's broken down cabin.

 

[fdcg27]

Originally Posted by Jarlaxle
Originally Posted by fdcg27
Originally Posted by HowAboutThis
Originally Posted by madRiver
New car buying on debt does not lead to any significant wealth building an carries risk.

Wealthy people do not leverage buying on cars credit to build more wealth. People justifying debt to perform investing because they cannot afford both do.



Bingo!

But I'm grateful for those wanting loans they can barely afford because it's how we keep used car prices down...if everyone paid cash and tried to buy used, used cars would be too expensive.


Oh please!

Many of us can well afford to buy new cars so we do thereby avoiding the unknown unknowns with any used purchase.
If the seller is offering free financing with no discount for writing a check for the purchase, then only a fool would pay cash.
Not everyone is living hand to mouth and most people with a few pennies to rub together aren't spendthrifts and are financially savvy and also have solid incomes and credit scores.
I also know of nobody with any real money who would seriously consider a used daily driver.
An exotic toy, sure, but not for a daily driver.
Just doesn't make sense not to buy new if you can well afford to do so.


My uncle could cash a 7-figure check tomorrow. His daily driver is a zero-option 2WD Ranger. Toys are an F-250, a hot-rodded Dakota, & a motorcycle.


I had such an uncle too.
My mother's brother.
Lived in, drove and ate well below his means. Used to bring back groceries bought on his meal per diem on frequent business trips to NYC.
He died in a very nice high-end assisted living facility after suffering years of senile dementia.
My two cousins still made out really well.

 

[Wolf359]

Originally Posted by Ws6
That sucks that it needs premium. With 87 octane, the CX5 GT-R performs similar to it, and with 93 octane it performs much better. Do you use premium because you want to, or because you must?
I prefer dealer service. Why buy a Benz just to endure shade-tree mechanic amenities? I much prefer my Mazda and their latte machine, brand new loaner or taxi service if I have a place to go, free detail, blah blah blah while I wait for my $60-70 oil change, inspection, fluid top-off, etc.

I've compared this thing to everything else out there, and literally nothing comprehensively is "better" for under $50K that I can find except for the Stelvio, and I'm not able to trust FCA products, sooo...

When I wanted a replacement for my 2015 CX5, I looked at the Audi Q3, Tiguan, X1, GLC300, etc. and just nothing out there was close in features or acceleration at the same time, for even nearly similar money.


Minimum octane requirement is 91 so yes, they require super. In addition to working to make money, you can also save it. Why pay $1k at the dealer for a brake job if your indy can do it for $200-$300? How many hours do you have to work to make $700? MB does have some of the nicest dealer lounges though, tons of free drinks racks of them like a convenience store, the one I've gone to also has a free breakfast/lunch bar. I never said MB was cheap, they're a luxury make so sometimes they do crazy things that sound normal like folding rear seats, but my folding rear seats also have the seat cushions flipping up so that the seat back will fold down flatter.

 

[Ws6]

Originally Posted by Wolf359
Originally Posted by Ws6
That sucks that it needs premium. With 87 octane, the CX5 GT-R performs similar to it, and with 93 octane it performs much better. Do you use premium because you want to, or because you must?
I prefer dealer service. Why buy a Benz just to endure shade-tree mechanic amenities? I much prefer my Mazda and their latte machine, brand new loaner or taxi service if I have a place to go, free detail, blah blah blah while I wait for my $60-70 oil change, inspection, fluid top-off, etc.

I've compared this thing to everything else out there, and literally nothing comprehensively is "better" for under $50K that I can find except for the Stelvio, and I'm not able to trust FCA products, sooo...

When I wanted a replacement for my 2015 CX5, I looked at the Audi Q3, Tiguan, X1, GLC300, etc. and just nothing out there was close in features or acceleration at the same time, for even nearly similar money.


Minimum octane requirement is 91 so yes, they require super. In addition to working to make money, you can also save it. Why pay $1k at the dealer for a brake job if your indy can do it for $200-$300? How many hours do you have to work to make $700? MB does have some of the nicest dealer lounges though, tons of free drinks racks of them like a convenience store, the one I've gone to also has a free breakfast/lunch bar. I never said MB was cheap, they're a luxury make so sometimes they do crazy things that sound normal like folding rear seats, but my folding rear seats also have the seat cushions flipping up so that the seat back will fold down flatter.


$700 includes 4 new rotors and 8 new pads...Labor was around $200ish, as I recall.

I'll stick with Mazda driving me to the gym and/or restaurant and then picking me up when the car is done. It comes out t he same, cost-wise, lol! But yeah, that is nice, I agree and am low key jealous.

 

[Mr Nice]

Originally Posted by Ws6
Originally Posted by edyvw
Mazda CX-5, new McLaren F1 of our age and time.

Rofl! More like the Ls1 Fbody of its class. Cheaper, faster, and nicer than all the others under 50k

Mazda gives you lots of car for little $$$.

Interested in SkyActiv X engine performance / fuel economy next year.

 

[Ws6]

Originally Posted by Mr Nice
Originally Posted by Ws6
Originally Posted by edyvw
Mazda CX-5, new McLaren F1 of our age and time.

Rofl! More like the Ls1 Fbody of its class. Cheaper, faster, and nicer than all the others under 50k

Mazda gives you lots of car for little $$$.

Interested in SkyActiv X engine performance / fuel economy next year.

Yeah, the managed to squeeze a ton of tech and amenities and a 250hp/310tq engine into mine for $33K. Not shabby!
SA-X is going to be cool I bet, but the 2.5T is top dog in my opinion as of current. It doesn't even belong in its price/category, really. No other CUV comes close in the 30's. Now, if Subaru brings back the Forester with their 2.4 turbo, it could get interesting, but it will have the CVT, so there's that

 

[edyvw]

Originally Posted by Ws6
Originally Posted by edyvw
Mazda CX-5, new McLaren F1 of our age and time.

Rofl! More like the Ls1 Fbody of its class. Cheaper, faster, and nicer than all the others under 50k

Agree. I always liked Mazda most of all Japanese manufacturers.
That is different from what you arguing. In the end, Mazda CX5 is FWD platform with transverse engine, and no, materials and interior is not better than GLC.
GLC is playing in different league, as well as BMW X3 etc. My Tiguan has same engine as Audi Q5 but I am not comparing it to it, it is different world.
Did you get a lot of car for the money? Yes. Is it better than GLC? No way!

 

[Andrew1972]

Mazda CX-5 with 2.5T is a niche vehicle that Mazda needs and can support. They luck out with loss of turbo Forester which Subaru found limited buyers.

Nice to hear CX-5 upgraded the tech. My wife liked the way it drove in 2018 however lack of decent tech (No Apple Play at time and clunky tiny screen) and tiny size it got tossed as choice. She would have loved that engine if available although strangely her first "slow" car in life in current CUV(2018 Tiguan) does not seem to mind.

 

[edyvw]

Originally Posted by madRiver
Mazda CX-5 with 2.5T is a niche vehicle that Mazda needs and can support. They luck out with loss of turbo Forester which Subaru found limited buyers.

Nice to hear CX-5 upgraded the tech. My wife liked the way it drove in 2018 however lack of decent tech (No Apple Play at time and clunky tiny screen)it got tossed as choice.

It is definiately interesting vehicle and IMO, I would get it before Acura RDX. But, let's not get carried away.

 

[Andrew1972]

Originally Posted by edyvw
Originally Posted by madRiver
Mazda CX-5 with 2.5T is a niche vehicle that Mazda needs and can support. They luck out with loss of turbo Forester which Subaru found limited buyers.

Nice to hear CX-5 upgraded the tech. My wife liked the way it drove in 2018 however lack of decent tech (No Apple Play at time and clunky tiny screen)it got tossed as choice.

It is definiately interesting vehicle and IMO, I would get it before Acura RDX. But, let's not get carried away.


I am bummed RDX dropped that V6 which was pleasant and simple vehicle my $65/hr mechanic could work on. A certified used one was in wife's mix of vehicles to get.

 

[Ws6]

Originally Posted by edyvw
Originally Posted by Ws6
Originally Posted by edyvw
Mazda CX-5, new McLaren F1 of our age and time.

Rofl! More like the Ls1 Fbody of its class. Cheaper, faster, and nicer than all the others under 50k

Agree. I always liked Mazda most of all Japanese manufacturers.
That is different from what you arguing. In the end, Mazda CX5 is FWD platform with transverse engine, and no, materials and interior is not better than GLC.
GLC is playing in different league, as well as BMW X3 etc. My Tiguan has same engine as Audi Q5 but I am not comparing it to it, it is different world.
Did you get a lot of car for the money? Yes. Is it better than GLC? No way!


I dunno. The raw materials in the GLC may well be better, but it is louder inside, it has more rattles, it requires 91 octane apparently, it's similar in acceleration 0-60 and slower in the long run, the interior options are give/take. I'm sure the paint is nicer, and the metal in the cockpit is real vs. plastic coated with shiny crap, but man, it sure doesn't seem better in a functional sense of "Is this cabin quiet?" "Is it squeak free?" and that sort of thing. My neighbor has an AMG43GLC. The engine, transmission, and stiffer suspension are the only things I view as "better", functionally. Go ride in/drive a Sig/GTR CX5. It's so far from the 2015 I owned that they should have renamed it.

I think the issue with the RDX is the transmission, the turbo motor is fine. Too much gears for the wee thing though and it's indecisive, etc. from what owners are saying on their own forums, and it really doesn't gain anything over the 6-7 speeds in a straight line, either.

 

[Ws6]

Originally Posted by madRiver
Mazda CX-5 with 2.5T is a niche vehicle that Mazda needs and can support. They luck out with loss of turbo Forester which Subaru found limited buyers.

Nice to hear CX-5 upgraded the tech. My wife liked the way it drove in 2018 however lack of decent tech (No Apple Play at time and clunky tiny screen) and tiny size it got tossed as choice. She would have loved that engine if available although strangely her first "slow" car in life in current CUV(2018 Tiguan) does not seem to mind.


The tech in the CX5 GTR/SIG is pretty awesome. Stuff I care about:

-A/C vents in the second row area
-heated second row
-slightly reclining second row
-2 way memory seats
-cooled and heated seats
-heated windshield
-radar adaptive cruise with stop/go (that works in heavy traffic flawlessly)
-HUD with NAV instructions
-ACP/AA
-Command knob for the infotainment

The SIG gets 360 parking camera. That isn't something I cared about so I passed, as it has a black headliner (forced option), and I prefer black seats w/light color headliners.

Is it still "slow" with a 6.2 second 0-60 and mid/high 14's in the quarter? Yes. But it's not super boring slow like the non-turbo CX5's.

 

[edyvw]

Originally Posted by Ws6
Originally Posted by edyvw
Originally Posted by Ws6
Originally Posted by edyvw
Mazda CX-5, new McLaren F1 of our age and time.

Rofl! More like the Ls1 Fbody of its class. Cheaper, faster, and nicer than all the others under 50k

Agree. I always liked Mazda most of all Japanese manufacturers.
That is different from what you arguing. In the end, Mazda CX5 is FWD platform with transverse engine, and no, materials and interior is not better than GLC.
GLC is playing in different league, as well as BMW X3 etc. My Tiguan has same engine as Audi Q5 but I am not comparing it to it, it is different world.
Did you get a lot of car for the money? Yes. Is it better than GLC? No way!


I dunno. The raw materials in the GLC may well be better, but it is louder inside, it has more rattles, it requires 91 octane apparently, it's similar in acceleration 0-60 and slower in the long run, the interior options are give/take. I'm sure the paint is nicer, and the metal in the cockpit is real vs. plastic coated with shiny crap, but man, it sure doesn't seem better in a functional sense of "Is this cabin quiet?" "Is it squeak free?" and that sort of thing. My neighbor has an AMG43GLC. The engine, transmission, and stiffer suspension are the only things I view as "better", functionally. Go ride in/drive a Sig/GTR CX5. It's so far from the 2015 I owned that they should have renamed it.

I think the issue with the RDX is the transmission, the turbo motor is fine. Too much gears for the wee thing though and it's indecisive, etc. from what owners are saying on their own forums, and it really doesn't gain anything over the 6-7 speeds in a straight line, either.

OK, but that is bang for a buck argument. That does not have anything to do with a fact that GLC is much more comprehensive vehicle. No, on top end Mazda will not be faster, simply bcs. Mercedes has FAR superior transmission, brakes etc, etc. It is "proper" RWD platform with longitudinal engine.
Invoking 91 octane argument and comparing car to MB is ridiculous. If 91 octane is a variable in purchase, no MB is not good buy. However, this is very common thing. People buy good vehicle, and start comparing to Audi, MB, BMW, Lexus etc. Sorry, but that is different league.
I can say: yeah, Tiguan is cheaper than Audi Q5, assembled really good, same engine, same bunch of stuff. But, simply it is not the same league.
Or when people say Camry V6 is same as Lexus IS350. Yes, engine is same, except small difference in output, BUT; Double wishbone in front, RWD platform, longitudinal engine, different transmission set up, brakes, insulation, welding procedure etc, etc, etc.

 

[Ws6]

Originally Posted by edyvw
[
OK, but that is bang for a buck argument. That does not have anything to do with a fact that GLC is much more comprehensive vehicle. No, on top end Mazda will not be faster, simply bcs. Mercedes has FAR superior transmission, brakes etc, etc. It is "proper" RWD platform with longitudinal engine.
Invoking 91 octane argument and comparing car to MB is ridiculous. If 91 octane is a variable in purchase, no MB is not good buy. However, this is very common thing. People buy good vehicle, and start comparing to Audi, MB, BMW, Lexus etc. Sorry, but that is different league.
I can say: yeah, Tiguan is cheaper than Audi Q5, assembled really good, same engine, same bunch of stuff. But, simply it is not the same league.
Or when people say Camry V6 is same as Lexus IS350. Yes, engine is same, except small difference in output, BUT; Double wishbone in front, RWD platform, longitudinal engine, different transmission set up, brakes, insulation, welding procedure etc, etc, etc.


I'm really not seeing what you're talking about regarding the brakes, as the CX5 stops in 1ft sooner from 60 vs the GLC300
I'm really not seeing what you're talking about regarding suspension, as the CX5 pulls 0.01g less on the skidpad
Top end the Mazda walks away from the GLC300, if you look at 0-120mph testing, the CX5 pulls it off 2 seconds faster.
The AWD in the benz seems nice, but I've driven awesome AWD before in snow and ice (0-100% individual torque splits to any of the 4 tires), and the CX5 does just as well with its 50/50 F/R, so functionally I'm not stressed.

I guess having experience riding with my neighbor in his AMG43GLC and my CX5, I'm just not seeing it for the base GLC300. The only thing I noted was the wider tires/stiffer suspension (not a factor for the base GLC). The ride refinement was a wash, maybe the CX5 was quieter. I won't dispute that I would prefer the longitudinal engine, and other technical aspects you mentioned, but in actual performance, the CX5 turbo is plenty to go head to head with the GLC300, and for amenities, it's a toss-up.

I just don't see the added value for t he money spent with the base GLC. The AMG, for sure.

 

[Jarlaxle]

Originally Posted by Ws6


Because priorities. Tell us what your uncle's passions are. You didn't mention his massive class 3 firearm collection, airplane, or whatever...


Hot rods, motorcycles and shooting, though none of those are big money for him. His gun collection is worth 7 figures, but it was acquired over 30+ years and nothing he has cost him that much money.

 

[Ws6]

Originally Posted by Jarlaxle
Originally Posted by Ws6


Because priorities. Tell us what your uncle's passions are. You didn't mention his massive class 3 firearm collection, airplane, or whatever...


Hot rods, motorcycles and shooting, though none of those are big money for him. His gun collection is worth 7 figures, but it was acquired over 30+ years and nothing he has cost him that much money.

[censored], to some, numbers in the bank is a passion. I have a friend like that. Can't bare to part with money.