Welcome to TalkBass, the Premier Bass Player Community and Information Source. Register a 100% Free Account to post and unlock tons of features.
Discussion in 'Off Topic [BG]' started by Richland123, Dec 4, 2012.
10 Used Cars to Avoid
In the review of the Dodge Charger, I found this statement which competes for the 2012 Captain Obvious award:
"Though enthusiasts may prefer the car's rear-wheel-drive configuration for its inherently crisper handling qualities, they tend to slip and slide on wet pavement and become stuck in the snow; those fitted with the optional all-wheel-drive system fare better in that regard."
OMGOMGOMG a RWD vehicle could get stuck in the snow!!!!!
Alert the media!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Stunning that someone would criticize a RWD vehicle for doing what a RWD vehicle is designed to do. And DUH that the AWD system would "fare better".
Let's put it this way......don't depend on Forbes for automotive advice. Ever. Bean counters make lousy car reviewers.
I chuckled at that statement as well. I have a rear wheel drive Pontiac Firebird that is worthless in the snow; therefore, I never drive it in the winter. It is great on hugging the road in nice weather but it's not designed for winter travel and I knew that when I bought it.
Many of the police departments in Pennsylvania use Dodge Chargers now but they are all wheel drive cars.
Bean counters are fine as reviewers if you view your car as merely an appliance for getting from point A to point B.
I will vouch for the suckiness of the Chevy Aveo. Ive driven a few of them as rental cars. They blow.
It's a re-badged Daewoo that sells brand new for less than $10K... you really can't expect much. I mean... you have to consider cost when doing this sort of analysis.
I don't know, I had an old Volvo, a Jag and a BMW (not at the same time and not new by any stretch). They were all pretty good in the snow. Not up to 4x4 standard, admittedly, but far from hopeless (my friend's new Jag is useless, incidentally: I think its the steam-roller width tyres).
When I was in the market for a new car to replace my Chevy Metro with 250K miles on it, I wanted to buy new for around $10-12K..and also had 2K in earning on my GM credit card. The Aveo was a natural choice. Another captain obvious for Forbes to say the honda and toyota competitors were better cars..they were also more expensive.
I will confirm that the interior looks and feels "cheap". I will also say that after 5 years of ownership and 100K miles that more little things have gone wrong than with my previous 2 cheap cars (the aforementioned metro and a Mazda 323 that I drove to over 300K). I'm not advocating anyone purchase one, just saying what do you want for the $?
The other thing that gripes me (as a driver or 3 and 4 cylinder vehicles over the past 30 years) in the review is the phobia about power. I do quite a bit of highway driving and never have any problem merging into traffic. You just have to use your brain rather than your accelerator.
Haha, yeah but as a former aveo owner I can definitely say this is one to avoid.
I bought mine with the understanding it was - as my mom called it - a throw away car. It was cheap, I could afford the payment, and it had a warranty which I wouldn't get if I just bought a car outright with the cash I had on hand. I bought the extended warranty when I got the car, which at the time was only up to 75,000 miles.
At about 25K one of the axles and a ball joint needed to be replaced due to excessive wear. At 74.9K a pulley for the timing system sheered off and destroyed the engine. The engine was replaced with a used engine by the warranty company (wouldn't give me a new one because the unbroken timing belt hadn't been changed at 60K like they recommend). At about 78K the fuel line basically disintegrated on me while driving down the highway (apparently they're made with thin plastic). The heat shield over the exhaust manifold rotted though after the first year. At about 80K miles the clutch started sticking and it would often refuse to enter first gear (manual transmission) unless I put it into reverse or second gear first. At that point I was done and traded it in. I think they still gave me like $1500 or $2000 for the car, surprisingly.
Yeah, in the course of researching a DIY timing belt change for my Aveo, I came across scores of folks with the same story. Apparently a big design flaw. Thanks for the heads up about the fuel line issue...I'll check mine.
By the way, I am in no way advocating buying a used aveo. In fact I think any vehicle that was an entry-level small car when it was new should be avoided, especially if it is several years and over 60K miles, UNLESS you personally know the previous owner took very good car of the car and followed the maintenence schedules.
The Suzuki XL-7 and the Land Rover I agree 110% with avoiding either.
The others are all kind of "Meh" in my opinion.
Exactly. That's completely antithetical to my view of a car. I refer to that kind of vehicle as a "toaster with wheels" because it's just an appliance with no personality and no real merits other than being cheap.
My Range Rover Sport SS of that exact vintage (the year quoted even) has had zero part failures or problems since purchased. The mileage is terrible though. They need to hurry up and get the diesel over here.
I'm not surprised by the listing of the Liberty, I have several friends who have owned them and they've been in and out of the shop constantly. They also got mediocre gas millage for a small 4-wheel drive that feels like a cheap tin can.
The GMC Colorado addition doesn't surprise me either. The small truck market is dead, even in GM city (detroit) I don't see them on the road. They aren't too practical, the rear wheel drives are the absolute worse vehicles in Winter, they don't get any better gas millage than their far larger brothers if you go to 4 x4 and they've pricey. I suspect they take a real dive on the resale market.
i want a big Range Rover, but yeah i'd want to hold out til they brought the diesel model.
Yep- I'm on it as soon as it arrives.
Well there is a bit of a point there that was killed when wording this for the masses.
Other rear wheel drive cars have fancy (expensive) electronic control systems to prevent you from flying off the road, namely BMW and Mercedes, and they also help to a certain extent in snow. BMWs in particular are also much better balanced than "the cheapest V8 on the market", and that helps a lot, too.
So I think there is some justification pointing this out for the Charger specifically, although as I said the way it was worded in the end is useless.
ETA: but good to see they give the Mitsubishis what they deserve. Mazda offers the same things for the same money in a much better implementation.
Never understand why people think rear wheel drive is so hard on wet and snowy roads. Maybe because today's drivers have never been exposed to it? I grew up with it and prefer it to this day. My car isn't rear wheel drive and I enjoy driving it, but I would prefer it to be rear wheel driven.
As for the Jeeps on this list, the first generation Liberties are really solid although the interiors could have been better. And what do you expect from Wranglers? People that buy Wranglers are more than liekly to take them mudding, that's why you buy them and likely why you are buying one used.
My 2012 Subaru Outback is so far, a great car. 15k miles so far.
Our 2001 Volvo V-70 bought new then, has been an outstanding automobile by running great, not eating us alive on repairs & maintenance. The stock stereo/CD player is outstanding. Deep, punctual bass (plays like butter). A great traveling car: 130,000 miles.
1997 BMW 528i. Now being driven by my son. Still an awesome driver. Brutal acceleration for a 6-er. Everybody gets outta the way of it. An insatiable appetite for repairs & gas but a 213,000 miles, drives better than many new cars I have tested.
Half of the list consists of Chrysler vehicles
Separate names with a comma.