I want to buy a new car

P5-133XL said:
I really must be missing something because I do not see the appeal of a peak HP/Torque anywhere above 3000 rpm's for normal city/Hwy driving. I can see it being needed for racing but other than that, no rational that I can think of.
Click to expand...
Buying decisions may be made on maximum figures, but they are seldom achieved in real life. Unfortunately, every manufacturer in the world always lists the maximum HP/Torque numbers, and these almost always occur at fairly high RPMs that will seldom be reached in the city. Doubtful if those RPMs can be sustained on the Hwy as well (there will be momentary blips in lower gears as the driver is accelerating hard). What would be more meaningful is a HP/Torque curve, but few manufacturers will disclose one, and probably few will understand it.

This issue relates to proper disclosure, something no manufacturer of any product in the world will disclose unless forced to.
 
mubs said:
Buying decisions may be made on maximum figures, but they are seldom achieved in real life. Unfortunately, every manufacturer in the world always lists the maximum HP/Torque numbers, and these almost always occur at fairly high RPMs that will seldom be reached in the city. Doubtful if those RPMs can be sustained on the Hwy as well (there will be momentary blips in lower gears as the driver is accelerating hard). What would be more meaningful is a HP/Torque curve, but few manufacturers will disclose one, and probably few will understand it.

This issue relates to proper disclosure, something no manufacturer of any product in the world will disclose unless forced to.
Click to expand...

One of the reasons I'm looking at an APR reprogramming for my car. Looking at the torque improvement below 4000RPM, I can see it would significantly benefit my driving style.
 
These things are very popular here. Everything from units that sit between the ECU and the sensors (sending modified data to the ECU) to a full reflash of the ECU itself. If the service center ever finds out, that would bork the warranty of course. There are several domestic companies in the game, and some that remarket the stuff made abroad.

As for myself, I don't live so close to the edge that I ever felt the need to do it. Won't be doing that on the new car as well; there's plenty of power for my needs.
 
jtr1962 said:
Yes, I think that's it. My sister is driving a 10+ year old Elantra with about 170K on it. My brother is using a 1993 Mark VIII with 240K. Neither could afford even a low-end new car at this point, never mind one of the cars in this thread.
Click to expand...

Well, I'm still driving my '96 Honda Accord (purchased new in '95) though it is now starting to show signs of wear. This past week I actually had to do my first repair because a computer went out that controlled a rear Window that is currently stuck open; the driver seat upholstery is showing some wear; The paint is starting to bubble because of ultra-violet light destroying the clear coat (It was early in the clear coat technology and they didn't get it right). I'm a big believer in driving it till it dies philosophy and I'm not one for impressing people with my ride or keeping up with the Jones.

My point is that I'm actually considering a replacement mainly because the car is obviously on the uphill climb in the repair costs curve. The cars I'm looking at are really very good at $20K - $25K (And there are lots of good cars in that range) and I could see theoretically doubling it to get to $50K if something was really worth it to me but I just don't see the value you are getting by moving up to the $100K+ level. The actual differences are small and subtle but the price difference is massive.

They may not be as quiet but everything is much quieter than my Honda Accord. The cars may not handle as well nor be as fast but I wouldn't ever drive aggressive enough to ever notice the difference. Build quality is hard to define but my observation is that the build quality is very high in modern cars even at less than luxury prices. I will agree that as you move up in price luxury amenities also increase and interior materials improve but I contend there is a limit and beyond 50K or so all of them have extremely high levels of amenities. How much better can climate-control get? Do the heated seats in a 50K car really do better than a 100K+ car?

I will agree DD that we are not in the same demographic. Even if I was, I'd still choose to put that $50K into a college fund for your new baby (so it can grow over the next 18 years) and buy that cheaper car. But I'm not you and you do have every right to your own priorities. I also recognize that this thread may just be a form of Window shopping and that possibly no $100K car may ever be purchased but that doesn't stop envy or talk.
 
Correction!

Upon reading the above post it should read: Do the heated seats in a 100K+ car really do better than a 50K car?
 
The seat heating in my car works fine, but there are many days where I wish for ventilated seats. Adaptive cruise control is another very worthy upgrade. Oh, and 4-wheel drive for those days where I need to go out to one of the quarries in the rain. I really like a hatchback to keep all my stuff, but SUVs are too big and don't handle well (I'd consider this a safety issue). Something with at least 6 forward gears for fuel economy and not a stick because I don't want to work that hard all the time (traffic up the peninsula can get pretty bad), but still something sporty. On that note something that doesn't have to work hard to maintain 80MPH and can get from 45-70 quickly is nice.

Granted, these are "wants" and not "needs", but suddenly $50k is just barely enough. Throw in some other stuff (rear seat amenities, additional space) and $75k is right around the corner.
 
P5-133XL said:
Well, I'm still driving my '96 Honda Accord (purchased new in '95) though it is now starting to show signs of wear. This past week I actually had to do my first repair because a computer went out that controlled a rear Window that is currently stuck open; the driver seat upholstery is showing some wear; The paint is starting to bubble because of ultra-violet light destroying the clear coat (It was early in the clear coat technology and they didn't get it right). I'm a big believer in driving it till it dies philosophy and I'm not one for impressing people with my ride or keeping up with the Jones.

My point is that I'm actually considering a replacement mainly because the car is obviously on the uphill climb in the repair costs curve. The cars I'm looking at are really very good at $20K - $25K (And there are lots of good cars in that range) and I could see theoretically doubling it to get to $50K if something was really worth it to me but I just don't see the value you are getting by moving up to the $100K+ level. The actual differences are small and subtle but the price difference is massive.

They may not be as quiet but everything is much quieter than my Honda Accord. The cars may not handle as well nor be as fast but I wouldn't ever drive aggressive enough to ever notice the difference. Build quality is hard to define but my observation is that the build quality is very high in modern cars even at less than luxury prices. I will agree that as you move up in price luxury amenities also increase and interior materials improve but I contend there is a limit and beyond 50K or so all of them have extremely high levels of amenities. How much better can climate-control get? Do the heated seats in a 50K car really do better than a 100K+ car?

I will agree DD that we are not in the same demographic. Even if I was, I'd still choose to put that $50K into a college fund for your new baby (so it can grow over the next 18 years) and buy that cheaper car. But I'm not you and you do have every right to your own priorities. I also recognize that this thread may just be a form of Window shopping and that possibly no $100K car may ever be purchased but that doesn't stop envy or talk.
Click to expand...

P5-133XL said:
Correction!

Upon reading the above post it should read: Do the heated seats in a 100K+ car really do better than a 50K car?
Click to expand...

That's great that you had a car with great reliability to last as long as it has for you. One of the things you've mentioned is that curve of repair to value on the car. It's a tough call when to call it quits on the car from an economical standpoint and it's somewhat personal choice to decide when it's right for you to call it quits. I have no great justifiable or practical means to explain why I don't keep cars very long in comparison to you. I get bored with them. I find them to be more than a form of A>B transportation. I enjoy the engineering. I enjoy chatting with others who appreciate the same. I enjoy the thrill of driving in a sportier manner. I haven't subscribed to the keeping up with the jones. I don't really know anyone in person who is interested in cars with a sporty nature like myself so I'm not keeping up with anyone. I can see where that theory comes into play but I don't feel like I fall into that. In most cases people never notice my car and I'd rather it be that way. It is by nature rather understated. It is in those few times when I meet up with someone at a light or a parking lot who also appriciates cars where we can chat and appriciate each other's vehicles.

I agree with you that there are lots of very good cars in the $20-$25K price range. The amount of return in a car as the price increases can be compared to that of someone who enjoys the fine details in expensive wines. Doubling the price of the car doesn't double the enjoyment or features. The same is true with wine. There are certain aspects of the car or wine you appriciate that other's may not. You can get better interior materials, better ride quality, better safety features (not always), more power and many other things but I agree that there does come a threshold of having one single car do everything and do everything well. The S8 in the above example at $100K+ may be the most comfortable car I'd ever drive in but how can it be that and also the most communicative car at the same time? It can't. Id much rather split that money into multiple cars that excel in their area than one that tries to do it all. There is another aspect to a car that's $100K+ that doesn't fall in line with a seat heater that's better of a climate control that's nicer. Those are the exotic cars that perform incredibly well and are an extreme joy to drive but may otherwise be aweful at being anything practical. Take something like a Porsche 911 GT3. It's much beyond $100K but it's an incredible machine for racing, driving, and enjoyment. It's likely brutul in terms of comfort, but that's to be expected. It has limited to no practical use for around town driving or any reason to be out in a snow storm but it has a great deal of engineering related to performance and a fun personality. Is it the best? Probably not. Would it be incredible to own or drive? Probably for someone who may appreciate the fine wine it offers. Is it worth spending that kind of money on? Only the one paying for it can decide.

I also agree that those vehicle are aimed at a different demographic than myself. If I were in a position/demographic to consider that car, all other obligations including retirment and college fund savings would have to be met before I would consider it. I suspect that the those people in those demographics make enough to cover the cost of those areas making it a non-issue.
 
Stereodude said:
Yes, the C7 Corvette and S8 are definitely in the same class. :rotfl:
Click to expand...

You're obviously correct that they're not. However, both are excessive, un-necessary and do more to stroke the owner's ego rather than provide any real value. Since the Vette is 1/2 the price I'd say it wins in that regard though..unless it's a money spending contest, which the Audi wins.
 
P5-133XL said:
My point is that I'm actually considering a replacement mainly because the car is obviously on the uphill climb in the repair costs curve. The cars I'm looking at are really very good at $20K - $25K (And there are lots of good cars in that range) and I could see theoretically doubling it to get to $50K if something was really worth it to me but I just don't see the value you are getting by moving up to the $100K+ level. The actual differences are small and subtle but the price difference is massive.
Click to expand...
It's pretty much the same with everything. I've even noticed it with cycling. An upgrade from a 105 to an Ultegra gruppo is usually worth the price in terms of added functionality. Even a 105 gruppo is just fine for many riders. To go from Ultegra to Dura-Ace is a huge price jump for minor additional benefits. Most, it's a few frills here and there, like one more set of sealed bearings on the rear derailleur. Same thing with complete bikes. Once you get much past about $3000, you're not getting much extra functionality or comfort for what you're spending.

You look at PCs, again the same thing. A low end system is usually adequate for most people. A mid-range system should do for nearly everyone. There's often not a huge difference for day-to-day tasks between a $700 system and a $3000 one. Of course, for some tasks you really need the $3000 system, but it's the same for cars. If you need a $100K or more expensive car, chances are a lot of your driving is on a track, not a public road. The autobahns are about the only public roads where I might see a $100K car being seriously better than a $30K car.
 
Handruin said:
I have no great justifiable or practical means to explain why I don't keep cars very long in comparison to you. I get bored with them. I find them to be more than a form of A>B transportation. I enjoy the engineering. I enjoy chatting with others who appreciate the same. I enjoy the thrill of driving in a sportier manner. I haven't subscribed to the keeping up with the jones. I don't really know anyone in person who is interested in cars with a sporty nature like myself so I'm not keeping up with anyone. I can see where that theory comes into play but I don't feel like I fall into that. In most cases people never notice my car and I'd rather it be that way. It is by nature rather understated. It is in those few times when I meet up with someone at a light or a parking lot who also appriciates cars where we can chat and appriciate each other's vehicles.
Click to expand...
You're a car hobbyist. Nothing wrong with that. My brother falls into the same camp, just he's not flush enough to buy new cars as often as he might like. Actually, he says his Mark VIII has better fit and finish, and is nicer to drive, than many newer cars. Not surprising given that it was $42K new back in 1993 (he bought it used for something like $17K). He might not mind a newer car eventually, but it'll have to be markedly better in most areas than what he's driving.

For my sister on the other hand, a car is simply a means to get from point A to point B. She'll happily ride a bus instead of drive if one is available. Actually, she did exactly that. She started driving a few miles to the park-and-ride instead of driving all the way to work. My sister probably represents the vast majority.

I've never owned a car so I don't know what camp I might fall into. In truth given the congestion on public roads I probably wouldn't see much point to getting anything beyond an econobox (an electric econobox because I really like the concept of EVs). Fast cars (including electrics) might be fun to drive and all, but there are scant places where you can open them up without risking at least a traffic ticket, or even worse, colliding with one of the incompetent minions on the road these days. I think that's why I love cycling so much. A bike is one of the few vehicles which you can "drive" flat out, and nobody notices. A velomobile would be even nicer (some of the faster ones can cruise at 40 to 50 mph with a strong rider).
 
ddrueding said:
Lately I've considered being close to 100hp/l to be the standard? BMW has been doing it for years among others. And that is before you get into forced induction.
Click to expand...
Who cares about internal displacement of the engine? Lets look at power vs. engine weight and power vs. engine size.
 
I've been under the impression that power/displacement relates closely to power/efficiency and power/fuel economy. Something about the stoichiometry and extracting power from the fuel in the cylinders. Disregarding that seems pretty silly.
 
ddrueding said:
I've been under the impression that power/displacement relates closely to power/efficiency and power/fuel economy. Something about the stoichiometry and extracting power from the fuel in the cylinders. Disregarding that seems pretty silly.
Click to expand...
Maybe I'm missing something. Fuel economy is a function of the amount of fuel burnt. In general a 400HP V8 will burn the same amount of fuel as a 400HP I4 with a turbo when they're both making 400HP. The C7 Corvette gets between 28 and 30MPG highway depending on the mode of the car. Last time I checked the BMW M3 doesn't do as well. The Hondas with >100HP/L got okay fuel economy because the engines are detuned dogs until the camshafts switch to an aggressive profile at high RPM and you have to rev the crap out of them to find that power.
 
ddrueding said:
Or more recently:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jaguar_C-X75
Click to expand...
That looks like a car I might have designed. Turbine engines suck when directly connected to the wheels via a conventional transmission. The way the C-X75 uses them (to recharge a battery which in turn drives electric motors) is exactly the best way to use them. This is a case where modern motor and electronic technology has enabled something which wasn't really feasible in the past.
 
ddrueding said:
Lately I've considered being close to 100hp/l to be the standard? BMW has been doing it for years among others. And that is before you get into forced induction.
Click to expand...

Is that a fact? I can only find two naturally aspirated BMW engines in the past decade that come close to achieving 100hp/l: the S54 3.2L inline 6 at 7900 rpm and the S65 4L V8 at a stratospheric 8300 rpm!

Are you getting confused with BMW motorcycles?
 
Those are the two that came to my mind (and make up a large part of their volume). It seems much easier to achieve with smaller engines, though Koenigsegg managed 1018bhp from a 4.8l engine. (212hp/l, NA)
 
I Googled Koenigsegg having never heard of it before. Consider me impressed with their car specs. Unfortunately, i'm pretty sure it is in the category of "If you have to ask, you can't afford it" range.
 
P5-133XL said:
I Googled Koenigsegg having never heard of it before. Consider me impressed with their car specs. Unfortunately, i'm pretty sure it is in the category of "If you have to ask, you can't afford it" range.
Click to expand...

They are in that category. :-/ they make cars with the coolest doors among many other things.
 
ddrueding said:
Those are the two that came to my mind (and make up a large part of their volume). It seems much easier to achieve with smaller engines, though Koenigsegg managed 1018bhp from a 4.8l engine. (212hp/l, NA)
Click to expand...

Why persist with bullshit? Those engines were almost exclusively used in M3 models, hardly "a large part of their volume"! And the Koenigsegg used twin superchargers, the antithesis of "naturally aspirated".

In any case, I agree with Stereodude: "Who cares about internal displacement of the engine? Lets look at power vs. engine weight and power vs. engine size."
 
In Edmunds performance testing, the V6 Impala accelerated from zero to 60 mph in 6.7 seconds, which is about average for a large sedan. The EPA estimates fuel economy at 18 mpg city/28 mpg highway, which is slightly below average for this class. The 2.5-liter earns an estimated 21 city/31 highway and 25 mpg combined rating, while the more frugal 2.4-liter should come in at 25/35.
 
ddrueding said:
New Vette looks nice. Particularly pleased to hear the interior quality has improved.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2NjYGtxClsM
Click to expand...

Clocker said:
College fund? What college fund?! He seems like he's pretty bright maybe he'll get a scholarship or something.

I will have to get in line to have one for a week. Maybe my number will come up in a year. ;)
Click to expand...

Looks like a really nice update to an already solid car. The 7-speed manual looks like it may be odd to get used to with the extra row of gears. Does the C7 also force manual drivers to shift from 1st to 4th?
 
The 1-4 shift is only active if you are driving in the Eco mode or if you are very very light on the throttle. I think it's totally disabled in 'sport' mode.
 
Clocker said:
Yes I am tooting my own horn. ;)
Click to expand...

I think the Impala is a fine car. A bit on the spendy side, for my taste, but that is to be expected for best in its class. A bit low on the mileage figures considering the price of gas, but not much and not surprising for such a big car.

I'm leaning towards a 2013 Toyota Camry Hybrid LE as my replacement to my 1996 Honda Accord LX. I'm not even sure I've decided to buy a replacement car for it is a really just a question of how much ugly I can tolerate and for how long. The Honda needs to be repainted badly but it is just not cost effective to do so in that it costs more to repaint (est. $4,500) then the car is worth (est $3,000). Other than that I can easily tolerate the repair expenses that a '96 is going to need in the near future. A purchase delayed is money saved...
 
Last edited:
The new 'Vette is a great looking car. But I was disappointed that they cheaped out and put Camaro tail lights on it. The 'Vette also has the goofy (to me) smiley face grille too. But I'd still buy one if I could afford it.
 
P5-133XL said:
I think the Impala is a fine car. A bit on the spendy side, for my taste, but that is to be expected for best in its class. A bit low on the mileage figures considering the price of gas, but not much and not surprising for such a big car.

I'm leaning towards a 2013 Toyota Camry Hybrid LE as my replacement to my 1996 Honda Accord LX. I'm not even sure I've decided to buy a replacement car for it is a really just a question of how much ugly I can tolerate and for how long. The Honda needs to be repainted badly but it is just not cost effective to do so in that it costs more to repaint (est. $4,500) then the car is worth (est $3,000). Other than that I can easily tolerate the repair expenses that a '96 is going to need in the near future. A purchase delayed is money saved...
Click to expand...

You should be able to find a cheaper paint job than $4.5k. Under $1k for a car that old last I looked. You don't want the paint job to outlast the car.
 
I went to 3 good local Auto-body shops (Lovejoy, Leifs, and Jacksons) and $4,500 was the cheapest estimate. The most expensive was $6,500. I also tried to get an estimate from Macco (A chain with a reputation for very cheap paint jobs) but they had permanently closed a couple of months before and I really do not wish to go to Portland (about 50 Miles away) to get my car painted.
 
P5-133XL said:
I went to 3 good local Auto-body shops (Lovejoy, Leifs, and Jacksons) and $4,500 was the cheapest estimate. The most expensive was $6,500. I also tried to get an estimate from Macco (A chain with a reputation for very cheap paint jobs) but they had permanently closed a couple of months before and I really do not wish to go to Portland (about 50 Miles away) to get my car painted.
Click to expand...

Paint it yourself. :-) If you're not ultra-concerned with the appearance and mainly want it to protect the bodywork from rot or additional rot, then there are DIY guides on how to get a basic job done.
 
P5-133XL said:
I went to 3 good local Auto-body shops (Lovejoy, Leifs, and Jacksons) and that was the cheapest estimate...
Click to expand...
Get a few cans of spray paint, some masking tape, and do it yourself. The idea of paint is to keep the body from rusting. A DIY paint job will accomplish that just as well as an expensive one. It's true that eventually it's not worth putting money into a car any more, but if you do things yourself on the cheap, that point comes a lot later.

Earl Scheib used to give cheap paint jobs. My dad had his car painted by them for $99. Are there any still around?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top