C&D Small SUV Comparo
- Thread starter Hokiefyd
- Start date
- Status
JHZR2
Staff member
But you dont have to feel old and uncool in a crossover...
Jetta wagons lack AWD. I'd rather take my chances with VW than Subaru, too many rabid VW fans means the repair knowledge is out there, plus I like the diesel torque. But I'm also tired of getting stuck in mine, snow tires and all.
If I may, how many minvans troop on past 200k w/o blowing a transmission? They seem notoriously weak. Sliding doors with the electric drive are just as bad in terms of needing repairs. My wife pointed out that you have to put them into park to open the door; and it won't let you out of park until it's closed--and it's slow as all get out. [Memories of a mispent youth coming to mind here: a food fight at extra-legal speeds in an Astrovan. Moving on...] Then again, I still hate having to put a foot onto the brake to shift out of park, so maybe it's just me.
It seems these days one really needs three vehicles: something for mpg's, something for hauling people or stuff, something for bad weather. Because you can't get all that in one vehicle.
If I may, how many minvans troop on past 200k w/o blowing a transmission? They seem notoriously weak. Sliding doors with the electric drive are just as bad in terms of needing repairs. My wife pointed out that you have to put them into park to open the door; and it won't let you out of park until it's closed--and it's slow as all get out. [Memories of a mispent youth coming to mind here: a food fight at extra-legal speeds in an Astrovan. Moving on...] Then again, I still hate having to put a foot onto the brake to shift out of park, so maybe it's just me.
It seems these days one really needs three vehicles: something for mpg's, something for hauling people or stuff, something for bad weather. Because you can't get all that in one vehicle.
Okay, then I guess they forgot about the turbo Forester. Duh.
There really is no point to an AWD CUV that lacks the ground clearance and the off road performance for light off road use.
A Forester may not be a rock crawler, but it does have decent off road utility, both as a result of its ground clearance and its AWD system.
There really is no point to an AWD CUV that lacks the ground clearance and the off road performance for light off road use.
A Forester may not be a rock crawler, but it does have decent off road utility, both as a result of its ground clearance and its AWD system.
IF we get a CX-5 diesel, that will be the winner by far. But I'm sure the premium for that engine would outweigh the gas savings for a few years, much like a hybrid - especially since the diesel will likely only be available in a fully-loaded model. Hoping to be proven wrong, though.
Originally Posted By: supton
It seems these days one really needs three vehicles: something for mpg's, something for hauling people or stuff, something for bad weather. Because you can't get all that in one vehicle.
actually 4: Something just for fun/joy of driving
It seems these days one really needs three vehicles: something for mpg's, something for hauling people or stuff, something for bad weather. Because you can't get all that in one vehicle.
actually 4: Something just for fun/joy of driving
Ha! Ok, I could see that. For myself, my lightly modified TDi fits two of the four. I haven't dyno'd it, but it's probably 260ft-lb at 2k, 140hp at 4k maybe, so to me it pulls like a rocket. With stiff shocks it handles well enough; and with a 17 gallon fuel capacity and over 45mpg it works for me as a commuter and fun car. Too bad the rust is setting in, and the wife just informed me we spent $4k in repairs and maintenance this year on it.
^^^That's my principal complaint against many so called 'economy cars'. I think we could all agree that 4 thousand dollars buys a lot of fuel for anyone.
It would. But my leather interior is a bit nicer than most econoboxes... It was a "premium" econobox, not sure you would properly label it. I recently figured out that, at 25k/year and $1k in repairs/year, it was about even with a 30mpg gasser in terms of running costs. Not stellar, but I didn't think it was too bad. And this year has been the worst, most years it's just $1k of repairs, give or take. [I think it was really just 2.8k in repairs.]
Anyhow, more to topic, all vehicles are compromises. For me, with no need for off-road capabilities, and with modest towing needs, and modest people moving needs, and snow country, and high miles per year--a CUV sorta looks attractive. A proper SUV is rated at what, at most 20mpg, for all that? The difference between 20 and 25mpg adds up quickly when you are doing more than the norm for miles per year.
Anyhow, more to topic, all vehicles are compromises. For me, with no need for off-road capabilities, and with modest towing needs, and modest people moving needs, and snow country, and high miles per year--a CUV sorta looks attractive. A proper SUV is rated at what, at most 20mpg, for all that? The difference between 20 and 25mpg adds up quickly when you are doing more than the norm for miles per year.
Originally Posted By: supton
Jetta wagons lack AWD. I'd rather take my chances with VW than Subaru, too many rabid VW fans means the repair knowledge is out there, plus I like the diesel torque. But I'm also tired of getting stuck in mine, snow tires and all.
If I may, how many minvans troop on past 200k w/o blowing a transmission? They seem notoriously weak. Sliding doors with the electric drive are just as bad in terms of needing repairs. My wife pointed out that you have to put them into park to open the door; and it won't let you out of park until it's closed--and it's slow as all get out. [Memories of a mispent youth coming to mind here: a food fight at extra-legal speeds in an Astrovan. Moving on...] Then again, I still hate having to put a foot onto the brake to shift out of park, so maybe it's just me.
It seems these days one really needs three vehicles: something for mpg's, something for hauling people or stuff, something for bad weather. Because you can't get all that in one vehicle.
To be fair, my Mazda did okay in 12" of snow (and that much is a real rarity here). I had to travel out-of-town in the ice storm during the SuperBowl. I did better than the police model 2WD Tahoe in the ice. And that was on 18" summer tires. It certainly hauls things like a CUV (even if my cargo area is a bit banged up from some of the things). MPG? Well, I could have gotten a 2.3
I would have better mileage.
Pretty much a moot point. Few of the 1st gen Mazda6es were hatchbacks and even fewer were wagons. Most are sedans. None of the current model are hatchbacks or wagons. At least not in North America.
Jetta wagons lack AWD. I'd rather take my chances with VW than Subaru, too many rabid VW fans means the repair knowledge is out there, plus I like the diesel torque. But I'm also tired of getting stuck in mine, snow tires and all.
If I may, how many minvans troop on past 200k w/o blowing a transmission? They seem notoriously weak. Sliding doors with the electric drive are just as bad in terms of needing repairs. My wife pointed out that you have to put them into park to open the door; and it won't let you out of park until it's closed--and it's slow as all get out. [Memories of a mispent youth coming to mind here: a food fight at extra-legal speeds in an Astrovan. Moving on...] Then again, I still hate having to put a foot onto the brake to shift out of park, so maybe it's just me.
It seems these days one really needs three vehicles: something for mpg's, something for hauling people or stuff, something for bad weather. Because you can't get all that in one vehicle.
To be fair, my Mazda did okay in 12" of snow (and that much is a real rarity here). I had to travel out-of-town in the ice storm during the SuperBowl. I did better than the police model 2WD Tahoe in the ice. And that was on 18" summer tires. It certainly hauls things like a CUV (even if my cargo area is a bit banged up from some of the things). MPG? Well, I could have gotten a 2.3
Pretty much a moot point. Few of the 1st gen Mazda6es were hatchbacks and even fewer were wagons. Most are sedans. None of the current model are hatchbacks or wagons. At least not in North America.
Originally Posted By: supton
It would. But my leather interior is a bit nicer than most econoboxes... It was a "premium" econobox, not sure you would properly label it. I recently figured out that, at 25k/year and $1k in repairs/year, it was about even with a 30mpg gasser in terms of running costs. Not stellar, but I didn't think it was too bad. And this year has been the worst, most years it's just $1k of repairs, give or take. [I think it was really just 2.8k in repairs.]
Anyhow, more to topic, all vehicles are compromises. For me, with no need for off-road capabilities, and with modest towing needs, and modest people moving needs, and snow country, and high miles per year--a CUV sorta looks attractive. A proper SUV is rated at what, at most 20mpg, for all that? The difference between 20 and 25mpg adds up quickly when you are doing more than the norm for miles per year.
No, I get it. Just glad to see one less SUV on the road where it is not needed.
I have so many friends with their high mileage cars that spend tons of money on maintenance and repairs and don't understand that if all you do is buy gas and oil that's a REAL economy car!
It would. But my leather interior is a bit nicer than most econoboxes... It was a "premium" econobox, not sure you would properly label it. I recently figured out that, at 25k/year and $1k in repairs/year, it was about even with a 30mpg gasser in terms of running costs. Not stellar, but I didn't think it was too bad. And this year has been the worst, most years it's just $1k of repairs, give or take. [I think it was really just 2.8k in repairs.]
Anyhow, more to topic, all vehicles are compromises. For me, with no need for off-road capabilities, and with modest towing needs, and modest people moving needs, and snow country, and high miles per year--a CUV sorta looks attractive. A proper SUV is rated at what, at most 20mpg, for all that? The difference between 20 and 25mpg adds up quickly when you are doing more than the norm for miles per year.
No, I get it. Just glad to see one less SUV on the road where it is not needed.
I have so many friends with their high mileage cars that spend tons of money on maintenance and repairs and don't understand that if all you do is buy gas and oil that's a REAL economy car!
JHZR2
Staff member
Originally Posted By: supton
Jetta wagons lack AWD. I'd rather take my chances with VW than Subaru, too many rabid VW fans means the repair knowledge is out there, plus I like the diesel torque. But I'm also tired of getting stuck in mine, snow tires and all.
If I may, how many minvans troop on past 200k w/o blowing a transmission? They seem notoriously weak. Sliding doors with the electric drive are just as bad in terms of needing repairs. My wife pointed out that you have to put them into park to open the door; and it won't let you out of park until it's closed--and it's slow as all get out. [Memories of a mispent youth coming to mind here: a food fight at extra-legal speeds in an Astrovan. Moving on...] Then again, I still hate having to put a foot onto the brake to shift out of park, so maybe it's just me.
It seems these days one really needs three vehicles: something for mpg's, something for hauling people or stuff, something for bad weather. Because you can't get all that in one vehicle.
I dunno. The parents 94 previa has 230k or a bit more on the original AT. Of course, most people seem to lack the mental anddriving capability to merge onto ramps without having over 250hp.
I wouldn't be afraid of running a subaru, and since you can get an mt, it is on our short list for bigger vehicles.
Even without mt, if there was a three row fwd Lexus rx hybrid, we'd probably buy one. It's about the same money as the highlander hybrid, so who knows, we may get one of those someday though the MPGs are lower than the rx.
But what id love to see is something with the form factor of a highlander but sliding doors. Swing open doors are impractical IMO. And the sienna is too wide, those things are getting giant!
Though I agree that automatic doors and tailgates are just things to break, and the must be in park is silly, while I get why. If we were to get, say, a sienna, I'd hopefully be able to have it all manual on the doors and tailgate.
Jetta wagons lack AWD. I'd rather take my chances with VW than Subaru, too many rabid VW fans means the repair knowledge is out there, plus I like the diesel torque. But I'm also tired of getting stuck in mine, snow tires and all.
If I may, how many minvans troop on past 200k w/o blowing a transmission? They seem notoriously weak. Sliding doors with the electric drive are just as bad in terms of needing repairs. My wife pointed out that you have to put them into park to open the door; and it won't let you out of park until it's closed--and it's slow as all get out. [Memories of a mispent youth coming to mind here: a food fight at extra-legal speeds in an Astrovan. Moving on...] Then again, I still hate having to put a foot onto the brake to shift out of park, so maybe it's just me.
It seems these days one really needs three vehicles: something for mpg's, something for hauling people or stuff, something for bad weather. Because you can't get all that in one vehicle.
I dunno. The parents 94 previa has 230k or a bit more on the original AT. Of course, most people seem to lack the mental anddriving capability to merge onto ramps without having over 250hp.
I wouldn't be afraid of running a subaru, and since you can get an mt, it is on our short list for bigger vehicles.
Even without mt, if there was a three row fwd Lexus rx hybrid, we'd probably buy one. It's about the same money as the highlander hybrid, so who knows, we may get one of those someday though the MPGs are lower than the rx.
But what id love to see is something with the form factor of a highlander but sliding doors. Swing open doors are impractical IMO. And the sienna is too wide, those things are getting giant!
Though I agree that automatic doors and tailgates are just things to break, and the must be in park is silly, while I get why. If we were to get, say, a sienna, I'd hopefully be able to have it all manual on the doors and tailgate.
I don't think I follow. No car needs struts/etc after 100k but cheapo econoboxes? A couple k here and there is still cheaper than replacing with another vehicle (usually). Or are you saying an econo car is one that you simply drive into the ground--ignore the sagging suspension and trailing blue smoke and whatever else may be amiss? It seems like econoboxes are the right tool for commuters; but that is a lot of time to be spent in a penalty box--yet it's where one is likely to spend the most money too (cost per mile times total milage).
I guess what I'm hung up on, is that every vehicle has some sort of running cost. Either you're busying paying for it (new) or you're busy paying for repairs. Hopefully not both at the same time. I don't get how vehicles can rack up 200k w/o repairs; perhaps the Panthers can, but last I knew they drank heavily at the pump. Gas savings can pay for a lot of repairs.
I guess what I'm hung up on, is that every vehicle has some sort of running cost. Either you're busying paying for it (new) or you're busy paying for repairs. Hopefully not both at the same time. I don't get how vehicles can rack up 200k w/o repairs; perhaps the Panthers can, but last I knew they drank heavily at the pump. Gas savings can pay for a lot of repairs.
Originally Posted By: JHZR2
I dunno. The parents 94 previa has 230k or a bit more on the original AT. Of course, most people seem to lack the mental anddriving capability to merge onto ramps without having over 250hp.
I wouldn't be afraid of running a subaru, and since you can get an mt, it is on our short list for bigger vehicles.
Even without mt, if there was a three row fwd Lexus rx hybrid, we'd probably buy one. It's about the same money as the highlander hybrid, so who knows, we may get one of those someday though the MPGs are lower than the rx.
But what id love to see is something with the form factor of a highlander but sliding doors. Swing open doors are impractical IMO. And the sienna is too wide, those things are getting giant!
Though I agree that automatic doors and tailgates are just things to break, and the must be in park is silly, while I get why. If we were to get, say, a sienna, I'd hopefully be able to have it all manual on the doors and tailgate.
Subaru tends to be high-geared in stickshift. My VW is barely low enough for every day driving—idle in first gear is 5mph. I have little city traffic, and yet a few times per year it’s annoying. My VW is also too high geared for towing IMO. Below 1,000lb it’s ok; but no way I can back up up an incline at more than that. I must be getting tired of driving stick or something.
Speaking of hp, there are some stupidly laid out highway intersections where acceleration does matter. Think of an on-ramp in front of an off-ramp. Thankfully I only deal with that a few times per year (I495N getting onto I93N during rush hour).
I dunno. The parents 94 previa has 230k or a bit more on the original AT. Of course, most people seem to lack the mental anddriving capability to merge onto ramps without having over 250hp.
I wouldn't be afraid of running a subaru, and since you can get an mt, it is on our short list for bigger vehicles.
Even without mt, if there was a three row fwd Lexus rx hybrid, we'd probably buy one. It's about the same money as the highlander hybrid, so who knows, we may get one of those someday though the MPGs are lower than the rx.
But what id love to see is something with the form factor of a highlander but sliding doors. Swing open doors are impractical IMO. And the sienna is too wide, those things are getting giant!
Though I agree that automatic doors and tailgates are just things to break, and the must be in park is silly, while I get why. If we were to get, say, a sienna, I'd hopefully be able to have it all manual on the doors and tailgate.
Subaru tends to be high-geared in stickshift. My VW is barely low enough for every day driving—idle in first gear is 5mph. I have little city traffic, and yet a few times per year it’s annoying. My VW is also too high geared for towing IMO. Below 1,000lb it’s ok; but no way I can back up up an incline at more than that. I must be getting tired of driving stick or something.
Speaking of hp, there are some stupidly laid out highway intersections where acceleration does matter. Think of an on-ramp in front of an off-ramp. Thankfully I only deal with that a few times per year (I495N getting onto I93N during rush hour).
JHZR2
Staff member
Yet there are likely tractor trailers that are remive as slow making it somehow....
Even driving my 67 HP Mercedes I don't have issues.
Even driving my 67 HP Mercedes I don't have issues.
But a distracted driver in a "I gotta' have a diesel HD truck...I'm too hard on cars..." isn't going to run over a tractor trailer from behind.
Your 240D? They might...but at least you'll be in one of the safest cars from that era to get run-over by Bubba "can't drive no car" inbred's F-250 Ram or Silverado 2500HD
Your 240D? They might...but at least you'll be in one of the safest cars from that era to get run-over by Bubba "can't drive no car" inbred's F-250 Ram or Silverado 2500HD
I'm curious as to why they didn't include the Mitsubishi Outlander Sport and the Rogue.
Regardless of how I feel about them, there is a market for CUVs.
The Tiguan I understand. Most likely a substantial price difference between a Kia Sportage and Volkswagen Tiguan. The Equinox? Probably a different size category. Those things look more Pilot sized than CR-V.
Regardless of how I feel about them, there is a market for CUVs.
The Tiguan I understand. Most likely a substantial price difference between a Kia Sportage and Volkswagen Tiguan. The Equinox? Probably a different size category. Those things look more Pilot sized than CR-V.
JHZR2
Staff member
Originally Posted By: supton
I don't think I follow. No car needs struts/etc after 100k but cheapo econoboxes? A couple k here and there is still cheaper than replacing with another vehicle (usually). Or are you saying an econo car is one that you simply drive into the ground--ignore the sagging suspension and trailing blue smoke and whatever else may be amiss? It seems like econoboxes are the right tool for commuters; but that is a lot of time to be spent in a penalty box--yet it's where one is likely to spend the most money too (cost per mile times total milage).
I guess what I'm hung up on, is that every vehicle has some sort of running cost. Either you're busying paying for it (new) or you're busy paying for repairs. Hopefully not both at the same time. I don't get how vehicles can rack up 200k w/o repairs; perhaps the Panthers can, but last I knew they drank heavily at the pump. Gas savings can pay for a lot of repairs.
Some might argue that there are different grades of quality parts used in different cars, and the bigger ones sometimes tend to be more "upscale".
So they may get better parts, and also may be worth a few more dollars when they hit x years and y miles.
I think it's more the valuation. There is a stigma of 100k miles, and more than, say, 7-8 years old. Many won't touch. And then you get the whole "the car is not worth it" type thing. Econoboxes get relegated to beaters much sooner, IMO.
I don't think I follow. No car needs struts/etc after 100k but cheapo econoboxes? A couple k here and there is still cheaper than replacing with another vehicle (usually). Or are you saying an econo car is one that you simply drive into the ground--ignore the sagging suspension and trailing blue smoke and whatever else may be amiss? It seems like econoboxes are the right tool for commuters; but that is a lot of time to be spent in a penalty box--yet it's where one is likely to spend the most money too (cost per mile times total milage).
I guess what I'm hung up on, is that every vehicle has some sort of running cost. Either you're busying paying for it (new) or you're busy paying for repairs. Hopefully not both at the same time. I don't get how vehicles can rack up 200k w/o repairs; perhaps the Panthers can, but last I knew they drank heavily at the pump. Gas savings can pay for a lot of repairs.
Some might argue that there are different grades of quality parts used in different cars, and the bigger ones sometimes tend to be more "upscale".
So they may get better parts, and also may be worth a few more dollars when they hit x years and y miles.
I think it's more the valuation. There is a stigma of 100k miles, and more than, say, 7-8 years old. Many won't touch. And then you get the whole "the car is not worth it" type thing. Econoboxes get relegated to beaters much sooner, IMO.
Originally Posted By: supton
I don't think I follow. No car needs struts/etc after 100k but cheapo econoboxes? A couple k here and there is still cheaper than replacing with another vehicle (usually). Or are you saying an econo car is one that you simply drive into the ground--ignore the sagging suspension and trailing blue smoke and whatever else may be amiss? It seems like econoboxes are the right tool for commuters; but that is a lot of time to be spent in a penalty box--yet it's where one is likely to spend the most money too (cost per mile times total milage).
I guess what I'm hung up on, is that every vehicle has some sort of running cost. Either you're busying paying for it (new) or you're busy paying for repairs. Hopefully not both at the same time. I don't get how vehicles can rack up 200k w/o repairs; perhaps the Panthers can, but last I knew they drank heavily at the pump. Gas savings can pay for a lot of repairs.
And lack of repairs can buy a LOT of fuel.
I routinely run a new Silverado well over 100k miles with nothing but one set of tires and one set of brake linings. Done it many times. I have also done it with Vans as well. Depending on how good they were built they can go mighty far. Our fleet pickups get around 17 under my foot and slightly less with the employees driving. I have one van with over 400k miles working daily with all the original running gear!
The Chrysler is on the same streak. 70k miles/7 years and all she's had is tires and brakes. This despite HPDE's and drag race passes! I fully expect to drive it nearly forever, and you can expect me to get 200k miles from it without any major repairs. It has Bilstein front shocks and Nivomat rears so it'll likely never need those parts. 17.5 mpg average since new.
No offense, but those little cars are cheap. Full of little itty bitty lightweight parts, each one engineered to death with CAD/CAM to be as inexpensive/lightweight as possible.
I don't think I follow. No car needs struts/etc after 100k but cheapo econoboxes? A couple k here and there is still cheaper than replacing with another vehicle (usually). Or are you saying an econo car is one that you simply drive into the ground--ignore the sagging suspension and trailing blue smoke and whatever else may be amiss? It seems like econoboxes are the right tool for commuters; but that is a lot of time to be spent in a penalty box--yet it's where one is likely to spend the most money too (cost per mile times total milage).
I guess what I'm hung up on, is that every vehicle has some sort of running cost. Either you're busying paying for it (new) or you're busy paying for repairs. Hopefully not both at the same time. I don't get how vehicles can rack up 200k w/o repairs; perhaps the Panthers can, but last I knew they drank heavily at the pump. Gas savings can pay for a lot of repairs.
And lack of repairs can buy a LOT of fuel.
I routinely run a new Silverado well over 100k miles with nothing but one set of tires and one set of brake linings. Done it many times. I have also done it with Vans as well. Depending on how good they were built they can go mighty far. Our fleet pickups get around 17 under my foot and slightly less with the employees driving. I have one van with over 400k miles working daily with all the original running gear!
The Chrysler is on the same streak. 70k miles/7 years and all she's had is tires and brakes. This despite HPDE's and drag race passes! I fully expect to drive it nearly forever, and you can expect me to get 200k miles from it without any major repairs. It has Bilstein front shocks and Nivomat rears so it'll likely never need those parts. 17.5 mpg average since new.
No offense, but those little cars are cheap. Full of little itty bitty lightweight parts, each one engineered to death with CAD/CAM to be as inexpensive/lightweight as possible.
Meh...
you can buy a Ford Fiesta and a Kia Rio for the price of an Audi A4. Excepting purchase price, care to speculate which one of the three will cost the most at 100,000 miles? Since Audi no longer has free scheduled maintenance, I'm betting on the CAD/CAM engineered to be as inexpensive and light as possible cars.
- Status
