Comparing Apples to Plums - Test driving cheaper cars with a friend.

warmtoes · 05-01-2014, 04:33 PM

Interesting reviews and viewpoint from an existing BMW driver. It won't be too long before my oldest starts driving and those were the type of cars I was looking at for him when it comes time. I'll definitely have to go out and drive some of these and see what impressions they leave on me.

But, I'm definitely thinking used to start.

bri1042 · 05-01-2014, 04:47 PM

I still think that a kid's first car should be like mine was...a '74 Malibu that was more rust than car. :-)

warmtoes · 05-01-2014, 05:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bri1042

I still think that a kid's first car should be like mine was...a '74 Malibu that was more rust than car. :-)

I hear you. It's what we had when I was a kid getting my first car but now that I'm a parent all the safety equipment means a lot to me when it comes to my kids. Airbags seem to be a minimum for me. ABS would be nice but not essential.

I still remember my friends cars that wouldn't idle unless you put your foot on the accelerator.

jacar · 05-01-2014, 06:17 PM

My wife was rear ended on a on ramp in her Volvo wagon with 3 toddlers in the back by a Dodge Dart-his car was totaled, hers had a scratch on the bumper but I noticed a slight bend in the rear quarter panel, took it in and it was 3" shorter than it had been. She and the kids came home without a scratch. We went through 7 Volvo's over the years, when it was time for a car for the kids (now strapping boys) we realized we had been safety conscious with them up to then and how could we stop now? So another Volvo wagon, they were rear ended on the highway after surfing, again a scratched bumper with the other car totaled. The cost of those cars was nothing compared to what the injuries could have been.
Now they are young adults shopping for their first cars of their own-they joke (but with some truth) that they should look at beaters or Smart cars and dad will show up with volvo's for them.

tturedraider · 05-01-2014, 06:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jacar

My wife was rear ended on a on ramp in her Volvo wagon with 3 toddlers in the back by a Dodge Dart-his car was totaled, hers had a scratch on the bumper but I noticed a slight bend in the rear quarter panel, took it in and it was 3" shorter than it had been. She and the kids came home without a scratch. We went through 7 Volvo's over the years, when it was time for a car for the kids (now strapping boys) we realized we had been safety conscious with them up to then and how could we stop now? So another Volvo wagon, they were rear ended on the highway after surfing, again a scratched bumper with the other car totaled. The cost of those cars was nothing compared to what the injuries could have been.
Now they are young adults shopping for their first cars of their own-they joke (but with some truth) that they should look at beaters or Smart cars and dad will show up with volvo's for them.

Fortunately they can get the same kind of protection in a Bimmer, too.

tdizzle · 05-01-2014, 07:02 PM

I think one has to at least look at the domestic offerings. To rule them put without testing them is doing himself a disservice. Cars like the focus are actually reviewed pretty well. I know there has always been the perception than foreign is better and more reliable but that's really not the case any longer.

Other side point, if you want bang for your buck buying bran new isn't the way to go. I'd have him check out a cpo car to save some money while possibly getting into a nicer car.

bri1042 · 05-01-2014, 08:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tdizzle

I think one has to at least look at the domestic offerings. To rule them put without testing them is doing himself a disservice. Cars like the focus are actually reviewed pretty well. I know there has always been the perception than foreign is better and more reliable but that's really not the case any longer.

Other side point, if you want bang for your buck buying bran new isn't the way to go. I'd have him check out a cpo car to save some money while possibly getting into a nicer car.

I don't disagree with any of that, but it hasn't been my money to spend during this endeavor. I gave a lot of viewpoints and opinions but always made it clear that his decision needs to be one that won't leave him angry or disappointed every month when he makes his car payment.

tdizzle · 05-01-2014, 08:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bri1042

I don't disagree with any of that, but it hasn't been my money to spend during this endeavor. I gave a lot of viewpoints and opinions but always made it clear that his decision needs to be one that won't leave him angry or disappointed every month when he makes his car payment.

Fair enough. Even if you're giving sound advice it won't mean anyone will follow it when they have other ideas they feel strongly about.

carzaddict · 05-02-2014, 09:26 AM

it used to be back in the day that special options (navi, cameras, etc) were reserved for luxury cars because the options were still expensive. these days you can get ALL of that in a car under $35k (or even for $17k as stated before). It really makes it difficult to justify the 2x price bump between that and a BMW (especially for a person who cant tell the difference in driving).

to make the decision harder.......those cheap japanese cars are reliable as hell! an accord or camry can last 2309802934234 years....german (a good amount) cars start falling apart the day the warranty expires.

i find myself asking "whats the catch?"..why are those cars significantly cheaper (besides the usual materials, labor, quantity).....and then you hear the story about the volvo and dart where the dart falls apart like glass. It leaves you wondering if some of the cost saving is in the materials used to built the car. do they cheapen out on the materials used to make the steel/aluminum between the 2 cars?

bri1042 · 05-02-2014, 11:00 AM

For the most part I know what the catch is. Balance. Read reviews, drive the cars, etc, and the cheaper cars sometimes meet the 328i in performance in some ways, and exceed it sometimes, but then fall flat in other areas. The Kia with the turbo-4 has a max HP output greater than the 328i, but it's a ton slower in every actual respect and falls short on all the handling tests, too. Fully loaded, they cross 35k. The Accord V6 is a good straight-line race for the 328i, but loses in braking and handling. Where those cars fail to match up and if it's worth the price difference is something we all have to think about.

A fun example of bad balance is the current Pentastar engined Jeep Wranglers. 0-60 in 6.8 seconds, but horrid 0-100 times, 207-foot 70-0 braking, and it can only manage .67g on the skidpad. That is not a vehicle I would want to drive fast, and I think people are going to kill themselves in them.

To me, my 328i X-Drive is a beautiful example of balance. Engine performance is very well matched by handling performance, transmission performance, and practicality.

chiefneil · 05-02-2014, 11:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by carzaddict

i find myself asking "whats the catch?"..why are those cars significantly cheaper (besides the usual materials, labor, quantity).....and then you hear the story about the volvo and dart where the dart falls apart like glass. It leaves you wondering if some of the cost saving is in the materials used to built the car. do they cheapen out on the materials used to make the steel/aluminum between the 2 cars?

You should ignore stories where somebody says, "My car barely had a scratch and the other car was totaled." Those prove nothing about the quality or safety of the car that only had a scratch.

Cars are designed with crumple zones which absorb the energy of a crash. Energy that would otherwise be directed to your body whiplashing backwards or forwards. The passenger cell is the part that's designed to be extremely rigid.

So long as the passenger cell is in intact, the entire rest of the car can and should be sacrificed to reduce impact forces on the passengers. Crumple zones are a big part of the reason modern cars are so much safer than older cars.

falar · 05-02-2014, 11:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by chiefneil

You should ignore stories where somebody says, "My car barely had a scratch and the other car was totaled." Those prove nothing about the quality or safety of the car that only had a scratch.

Cars are designed with crumple zones which absorb the energy of a crash. Energy that would otherwise be directed to your body whiplashing backwards or forwards. The passenger cell is the part that's designed to be extremely rigid.

So long as the passenger cell is in intact, the entire rest of the car can and should be sacrificed to reduce impact forces on the passengers. Crumple zones are a big part of the reason modern cars are so much safer than older cars.

Cars are pretty safe these days.

3 years ago I was driving the household beater, my wife's old 2004 Saturn Ion and had a head-on collision at 40mph with a '99 Ford Explorer.

From the firewall forward the car was gone, just gone. There were just small pieces of it scattered all over the place yet the windshield didn't even have a crack in it, crazy.

I can only imagine what cars are like that have been designed in recent times and I hope to never find out for sure.

invisibomb · 05-02-2014, 11:46 AM

I'm curious to know what you thought of the CVT in the Honda. I've yet to drive one yet and I hear all kinds of contradictory information.

newoldbeemer · 05-02-2014, 11:57 AM

Good thread. After deciding to sell my E90 I decided I needed the reliability of a "new car" and almost decided on the Accord V6. Thanks to a horrible dealership experience at my local Honda, I did a bit of cross-shopping. I was looking at a few cars equal-ish in performance, and ended up cross-shopping the GTI, Subaru Legacy, Jetta GLI and.. of course the 320i. The upper limit in my mind was $30k.

I have to say the 320i I test drove - which was priced around 30k - blew the others away. Even in terms of performance. I know the Accord V6 makes more power, but with the 320i it was way more usable. And handling was waaaay better, driving it back to back with the Accord V6.

Of course the Accord was loaded to the gills with electronics and interior niceties but testing on a few on-ramps and exit-ramps it was very evident the car isn't made for "handling". The GTI handled those ramps with finesse and the 320i was even better! That's when I remembered there's a lot more to BMW than just the badge, and RWD is a tangible benefit. Being used to my E90, I could drive the 320i with a lot more confidence than any of the other cars, GTI included.

The only car that impressed me equally in handling was the Subaru but it felt a bit underpowered. I couldn't get my hands on a 3.6 version though.

The story ended happily with a 328i at $35k

It is certainly apples vs plums. While I agree the other brands are offering all the electronics at a lower price, I would still get a 3 series for the RWD and the turbo, if the pricing is reasonably comparable. Oh and our cars look way better too!

bri1042 · 05-03-2014, 08:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by invisibomb

I'm curious to know what you thought of the CVT in the Honda. I've yet to drive one yet and I hear all kinds of contradictory information.

It did it's job without complaint or any excitement. As I mentioned before, I am not a fan of Auto trannys of either type and have only ever been happy with one auto. The ZF 8 in my 328i, and I still argue about with myself all the time. The CVT "drone" on the highway was certainly evident but not a lot over the general road noise. It was a workable solution for a low-powered car, and better than the 5-speed auto that Honda stuck with for so long. The auto in the Mazda was a more engaging drive, though.

I did hear that Honda stuck with that 5-speed auto for as long as they did because the plant that got splatted in the tsunami was their transmission plant. I'm not sure if it's true, but it would explain a lot.

drkeng · 05-03-2014, 03:49 PM

check out this comparo in MT

http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/..._the_big_test/

in the June magazine, it's the Honda Civic, Hyundai Elantra, Kia Forte, Mazda 3, Toyota Corolla. Kia has driver seat cooling and rear seat a/c vents. Kia was 8.1 sec 0-60; others were up to 9.6. Lots of features in these cars that retail in the mid $20K range.

bri1042 · 05-03-2014, 08:40 PM

I read them nearly religiously, and sent my friend to read a lot of recent comparisons and reviews. Really, though, I couldn't recommend anyone buy a Kia until they have about 10 years of proven decent reliability. Their quality upswing is too recent to trust when recommending a long-term ownership product to a friend.

That isn't a Kia bias. They were terrible in the late '90's and through the 2000's in the same way Hyundai was in the late 80's and early 90's. I'm assuming that Hyundai has turned Kia around in the same way that they did for themselves, but for a recommendation to come from me for a friend who has to be careful with his money? That takes more than assumptions. Kia has to earn it and not enough time has passed since those first horrid Sephia's and Rio's. Hyundai has mostly proven themselves, with a few missteps recently, but the company kinship doesn't include the factories that build them, so it doesn't flow through far enough.

05-01-2014, 04:33 PM	#45
warmtoes Lieutenant Colonel 31 Rep 1,917 Posts Drives: EBII 435i xDrive Join Date: Apr 2008 Location: Vancouver iTrader: (1)	Interesting reviews and viewpoint from an existing BMW driver. It won't be too long before my oldest starts driving and those were the type of cars I was looking at for him when it comes time. I'll definitely have to go out and drive some of these and see what impressions they leave on me. But, I'm definitely thinking used to start. __________________ *2014 EBII 435i xDrive M-sport* Gone: 2011 TiAg F25 X3 xDrive35i M-sport Gone: 2008 TiAg w/Coral Red E88 135i Cab M-sport
	Appreciate 0 Quote

05-01-2014, 04:47 PM	#46
bri1042 Brigadier General 5931 Rep 3,288 Posts Drives: 2021 IOMG M3 6MT Join Date: Mar 2013 Location: Portland, OR iTrader: (0)	I still think that a kid's first car should be like mine was...a '74 Malibu that was more rust than car. :-)
	Appreciate 0 Quote

05-01-2014, 06:17 PM	#48
jacar Private 8 Rep 69 Posts Drives: 2013 AH3 Join Date: Apr 2010 Location: Hawaii iTrader: (0)	My wife was rear ended on a on ramp in her Volvo wagon with 3 toddlers in the back by a Dodge Dart-his car was totaled, hers had a scratch on the bumper but I noticed a slight bend in the rear quarter panel, took it in and it was 3" shorter than it had been. She and the kids came home without a scratch. We went through 7 Volvo's over the years, when it was time for a car for the kids (now strapping boys) we realized we had been safety conscious with them up to then and how could we stop now? So another Volvo wagon, they were rear ended on the highway after surfing, again a scratched bumper with the other car totaled. The cost of those cars was nothing compared to what the injuries could have been. Now they are young adults shopping for their first cars of their own-they joke (but with some truth) that they should look at beaters or Smart cars and dad will show up with volvo's for them.
	Appreciate 0 Quote

05-01-2014, 07:02 PM	#50
tdizzle Colonel 107 Rep 1,997 Posts Drives: 2017 F80 ZCP Join Date: Aug 2012 Location: Memphis iTrader: (0)	I think one has to at least look at the domestic offerings. To rule them put without testing them is doing himself a disservice. Cars like the focus are actually reviewed pretty well. I know there has always been the perception than foreign is better and more reliable but that's really not the case any longer. Other side point, if you want bang for your buck buying bran new isn't the way to go. I'd have him check out a cpo car to save some money while possibly getting into a nicer car.
	Appreciate 0 Quote

05-02-2014, 09:26 AM	#53
carzaddict Lieutenant Colonel 158 Rep 1,573 Posts Drives: 2015 Cadillac Escalade ESV Join Date: Aug 2013 Location: NJ iTrader: (0)	it used to be back in the day that special options (navi, cameras, etc) were reserved for luxury cars because the options were still expensive. these days you can get ALL of that in a car under $35k (or even for $17k as stated before). It really makes it difficult to justify the 2x price bump between that and a BMW (especially for a person who cant tell the difference in driving). to make the decision harder.......those cheap japanese cars are reliable as hell! an accord or camry can last 2309802934234 years....german (a good amount) cars start falling apart the day the warranty expires. i find myself asking "whats the catch?"..why are those cars significantly cheaper (besides the usual materials, labor, quantity).....and then you hear the story about the volvo and dart where the dart falls apart like glass. It leaves you wondering if some of the cost saving is in the materials used to built the car. do they cheapen out on the materials used to make the steel/aluminum between the 2 cars? __________________ 2015i Cadillac Escalade ESV
	Appreciate 0 Quote

05-02-2014, 11:00 AM	#54
bri1042 Brigadier General 5931 Rep 3,288 Posts Drives: 2021 IOMG M3 6MT Join Date: Mar 2013 Location: Portland, OR iTrader: (0)	For the most part I know what the catch is. Balance. Read reviews, drive the cars, etc, and the cheaper cars sometimes meet the 328i in performance in some ways, and exceed it sometimes, but then fall flat in other areas. The Kia with the turbo-4 has a max HP output greater than the 328i, but it's a ton slower in every actual respect and falls short on all the handling tests, too. Fully loaded, they cross 35k. The Accord V6 is a good straight-line race for the 328i, but loses in braking and handling. Where those cars fail to match up and if it's worth the price difference is something we all have to think about. A fun example of bad balance is the current Pentastar engined Jeep Wranglers. 0-60 in 6.8 seconds, but horrid 0-100 times, 207-foot 70-0 braking, and it can only manage .67g on the skidpad. That is not a vehicle I would want to drive fast, and I think people are going to kill themselves in them. To me, my 328i X-Drive is a beautiful example of balance. Engine performance is very well matched by handling performance, transmission performance, and practicality.
	Appreciate 0 Quote

05-02-2014, 11:46 AM	#57
invisibomb New Member 0 Rep 7 Posts Drives: 2014 328d xdrive Join Date: Jan 2014 Location: United States iTrader: (0)	I'm curious to know what you thought of the CVT in the Honda. I've yet to drive one yet and I hear all kinds of contradictory information.
	Appreciate 0 Quote

05-02-2014, 11:57 AM	#58
newoldbeemer Major 266 Rep 1,093 Posts Drives: 2012 E92 328i Join Date: May 2013 Location: San Jose iTrader: (0)	Good thread. After deciding to sell my E90 I decided I needed the reliability of a "new car" and almost decided on the Accord V6. Thanks to a horrible dealership experience at my local Honda, I did a bit of cross-shopping. I was looking at a few cars equal-ish in performance, and ended up cross-shopping the GTI, Subaru Legacy, Jetta GLI and.. of course the 320i. The upper limit in my mind was $30k. I have to say the 320i I test drove - which was priced around 30k - blew the others away. Even in terms of performance. I know the Accord V6 makes more power, but with the 320i it was way more usable. And handling was waaaay better, driving it back to back with the Accord V6. Of course the Accord was loaded to the gills with electronics and interior niceties but testing on a few on-ramps and exit-ramps it was very evident the car isn't made for "handling". The GTI handled those ramps with finesse and the 320i was even better! That's when I remembered there's a lot more to BMW than just the badge, and RWD is a tangible benefit. Being used to my E90, I could drive the 320i with a lot more confidence than any of the other cars, GTI included. The only car that impressed me equally in handling was the Subaru but it felt a bit underpowered. I couldn't get my hands on a 3.6 version though. The story ended happily with a 328i at $35k It is certainly apples vs plums. While I agree the other brands are offering all the electronics at a lower price, I would still get a 3 series for the RWD and the turbo, if the pricing is reasonably comparable. Oh and our cars look way better too! Last edited by newoldbeemer; 05-02-2014 at 12:08 PM..
	Appreciate 0 Quote

05-03-2014, 03:49 PM	#60
drkeng Major 156 Rep 1,014 Posts Drives: '18 M4 'vert Tanz Blue Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: Northbrook, IL iTrader: (0)	check out this comparo in MT http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/..._the_big_test/ in the June magazine, it's the Honda Civic, Hyundai Elantra, Kia Forte, Mazda 3, Toyota Corolla. Kia has driver seat cooling and rear seat a/c vents. Kia was 8.1 sec 0-60; others were up to 9.6. Lots of features in these cars that retail in the mid $20K range. __________________ ///M4 'vert
	Appreciate 0 Quote

05-03-2014, 08:40 PM	#61
bri1042 Brigadier General 5931 Rep 3,288 Posts Drives: 2021 IOMG M3 6MT Join Date: Mar 2013 Location: Portland, OR iTrader: (0)	I read them nearly religiously, and sent my friend to read a lot of recent comparisons and reviews. Really, though, I couldn't recommend anyone buy a Kia until they have about 10 years of proven decent reliability. Their quality upswing is too recent to trust when recommending a long-term ownership product to a friend. That isn't a Kia bias. They were terrible in the late '90's and through the 2000's in the same way Hyundai was in the late 80's and early 90's. I'm assuming that Hyundai has turned Kia around in the same way that they did for themselves, but for a recommendation to come from me for a friend who has to be careful with his money? That takes more than assumptions. Kia has to earn it and not enough time has passed since those first horrid Sephia's and Rio's. Hyundai has mostly proven themselves, with a few missteps recently, but the company kinship doesn't include the factories that build them, so it doesn't flow through far enough.
	Appreciate 0 Quote