The Car Thread

[MrDrew]

1 hour ago, CaliforniaKid7 said:

Going to be selling my 2004 Ford F-150 Lariat here pretty soon. Getting tired of the 12mpg and with me heading to grad school soon with the possibility of a daily commute wherever I go I'd much rather have something a little more gas friendly. 

 

Not too sure but hoping I can get between $7,000-$8,000 for my truck and use that to buy a 2008-2011 Ford Escape. Better gas mileage while still allowing me to haul small things if necessary and I'd like to the 4WD/AWD for the snow, etc. 

 

Anyone have any experience with Ford Escapes? Personally wouldn't mind going the Manual route as that's what I learned on and loved it but they seem to be harder to find. 

 

Any tips are much appreciated!

The Escape doesn't have the best build quality, and at that price you're only going to find something older, which makes it an even bigger problem. If it were me, and I were looking into that type of vehicle, I go for a Toyota RAV4, Subaru Forrester, or Subaru Outback Wagon. All of those will be nicer than an Escape, get better gas mileage, and last a lot longer if you take care of it. 

[CaliforniaKid7]

39 minutes ago, MrDrew said:

The Escape doesn't have the best build quality, and at that price you're only going to find something older, which makes it an even bigger problem. If it were me, and I were looking into that type of vehicle, I go for a Toyota RAV4, Subaru Forrester, or Subaru Outback Wagon. All of those will be nicer than an Escape, get better gas mileage, and last a lot longer if you take care of it. 

Yeah those were the other cars I've been looking at, especially the forester but I have been able to find some Ford Escapes in my area for $9,000-10,000 that are 2009/2010/2011 which it seems like 2009 and on is when they made significant improvement to the Escape but I'm only scraping the surface on that stuff. Definitely would get anything older than 2009.

 

Need to check around my area and see about the RAV4 and Outback. Always gravitate to Fords because its all my family drives and has driven but I'm not against moving brands, although I do like the look of the 2010's Ford Escapes the best out of the listed cars. 

 

The Outback Wagon definitely interests me, seems like the prices are fairly close to my range.

Edited September 5, 2017 by CaliforniaKid7

[MrDrew]

51 minutes ago, CaliforniaKid7 said:

Always gravitate to Fords because its all my family drives and has driven but I'm not against moving brands, although I do like the look of the 2010's Ford Escapes the best out of the listed cars. 

The Escapes just weren't built well. Interior and electronics are really cheap, and that's why they're usually priced so low. Everybody I know that's had one had a lot of stupid problems, but not usually to the point that the car wouldn't run. 

I would suggest going and driving the Escape, and all of the competition in your price range. I think you'll see a very noticeable difference in the quality. 

[CaliforniaKid7]

1 minute ago, MrDrew said:

The Escapes just weren't built well. Interior and electronics are really cheap, and that's why they're usually priced so low. Everybody I know that's had one had a lot of stupid problems, but not usually to the point that the car wouldn't run. 

I would suggest going and driving the Escape, and all of the competition in your price range. I think you'll see a very noticeable difference in the quality. 

Will do! Definitely seeing some decent looking Subaru's in my area (Northern California). Any tips on the Forester/Outback as far as how old I can/should go? Any major changes in the engine/body that should cap my year range? (like nothing below a 2008?)

[MrDrew]

13 minutes ago, CaliforniaKid7 said:

Will do! Definitely seeing some decent looking Subaru's in my area (Northern California). Any tips on the Forester/Outback as far as how old I can/should go? Any major changes in the engine/body that should cap my year range? (like nothing below a 2008?)

I don't know enough to single out years, but I'm pretty sure anything 2008 and newer will be good. I actually see dealers, and not the cheap lots, selling both with 300k+ miles. They sell fast too. 

In the Forrester, the 2.5XT is the model to have. Not sure if it's the best, but it's definitely the most fun since it used a tuned down version of the WRX engine.

 

[CaliforniaKid7]

43 minutes ago, MrDrew said:

I don't know enough to single out years, but I'm pretty sure anything 2008 and newer will be good. I actually see dealers, and not the cheap lots, selling both with 300k+ miles. They sell fast too. 

In the Forrester, the 2.5XT is the model to have. Not sure if it's the best, but it's definitely the most fun since it used a tuned down version of the WRX engine.

 

300k miles? Yikes. That was one of my other questions. Obviously with a used car you're going to be acquiring some miles. Is there a rule of thumb in regards to that or what? I'm trying to shy away from anything with more than 150,000 miles but if it's a well taken care of Subaru would it be safe to go higher?

[MrDrew]

3 hours ago, CaliforniaKid7 said:

300k miles? Yikes. That was one of my other questions. Obviously with a used car you're going to be acquiring some miles. Is there a rule of thumb in regards to that or what? I'm trying to shy away from anything with more than 150,000 miles but if it's a well taken care of Subaru would it be safe to go higher?

You're taking a risk with any high mileage car, but a Subaru/Toyota/Honda lower the risk a little.

Another one I thought of in that class is a Honda Element. They also run forever, and are pretty cool.

[Tugboat]

I'd be scared of any modern high mileage car.  I'm sure i'll sound like a crotchety old man, but honestly..."they don't build 'em like they used to".  Every new car has so much to go wrong now, and it's all electronic gadgetry which is the biggest pain in the butt to troubleshoot.  And just the engines themselves...they may be built "better" in terms of quality standards, but they're built out of less durable materials and closer to the edge as well.  Nobody is putting big ol' bulletproof iron lumps in their cars anymore.  Nothing is engineered to exceed specs.  It's just...build this car to xxx,xxx miles standard and anything beyond that is probably waste.

[LETSGOBROWNIES]

4 hours ago, Tugboat said:

I'd be scared of any modern high mileage car.  I'm sure i'll sound like a crotchety old man, but honestly..."they don't build 'em like they used to".  Every new car has so much to go wrong now, and it's all electronic gadgetry which is the biggest pain in the butt to troubleshoot.  And just the engines themselves...they may be built "better" in terms of quality standards, but they're built out of less durable materials and closer to the edge as well.  Nobody is putting big ol' bulletproof iron lumps in their cars anymore.  Nothing is engineered to exceed specs.  It's just...build this car to xxx,xxx miles standard and anything beyond that is probably waste.

Tbh, they build them far better than they used to.

It used to be that 100k was kind of the expected service life, especially domestic brands.  Ford, Chrysler and GM cars were often a POS at 100k and in need of frequent maintainence to keep them going.  Then, in the 80's and 90's Honda and Toyota became much more popular by selling cars that regularly lasted to 200-300k and did so with minimal maintainence. 

After the late 90's early 2k's, it seemed as though those Japanese brands had become every bit as popular as domestic brands as a lot of the "I only buy American" crowd turned into "I want to buy the best product". Once that happened Ford, Chrysler and GM couldn't depend solely on brand loyalty and had to get off their fat, content arses and start building a competitive product.

Over the last decade Ford/GM/Chrysler have all started producing much higher quality vehicles that are every bit as well made as Honda/Toyota/Subaru IMO.  

I used to be the "I'll only buy a Honda (owned 2) Toyota, or Subaru (owned a Forester, still own a Legacy), but my current vehicle is a Ram 1500, which I would have laughed at the thought of owning a decade ago.

All of this is just my opinion though.

[Csonka Trucks]

5 hours ago, Tugboat said:

I'd be scared of any modern high mileage car.  I'm sure i'll sound like a crotchety old man, but honestly..."they don't build 'em like they used to".  Every new car has so much to go wrong now, and it's all electronic gadgetry which is the biggest pain in the butt to troubleshoot.  And just the engines themselves...they may be built "better" in terms of quality standards, but they're built out of less durable materials and closer to the edge as well.  Nobody is putting big ol' bulletproof iron lumps in their cars anymore.  Nothing is engineered to exceed specs.  It's just...build this car to xxx,xxx miles standard and anything beyond that is probably waste.

Certain brands I'd agree with you. Subaru and Nissan though both make good cars that can get over 200. Hell, most foreign car makers do.

[Tugboat]

On 10/10/2017 at 5:40 AM, patdt13 said:

Certain brands I'd agree with you. Subaru and Nissan though both make good cars that can get over 200. Hell, most foreign car makers do.

 

On 10/10/2017 at 4:28 AM, LETSGOBROWNIES said:

Tbh, they build them far better than they used to.

It used to be that 100k was kind of the expected service life, especially domestic brands.  Ford, Chrysler and GM cars were often a POS at 100k and in need of frequent maintainence to keep them going.  Then, in the 80's and 90's Honda and Toyota became much more popular by selling cars that regularly lasted to 200-300k and did so with minimal maintainence. 

After the late 90's early 2k's, it seemed as though those Japanese brands had become every bit as popular as domestic brands as a lot of the "I only buy American" crowd turned into "I want to buy the best product". Once that happened Ford, Chrysler and GM couldn't depend solely on brand loyalty and had to get off their fat, content arses and start building a competitive product.

Over the last decade Ford/GM/Chrysler have all started producing much higher quality vehicles that are every bit as well made as Honda/Toyota/Subaru IMO.  

I used to be the "I'll only buy a Honda (owned 2) Toyota, or Subaru (owned a Forester, still own a Legacy), but my current vehicle is a Ram 1500, which I would have laughed at the thought of owning a decade ago.

All of this is just my opinion though.

Eh, if we're comparing to some of the shoddy build quality that plagued the domestics back in the day, fair point i guess.  There have been lots of car makers building cars that will work well past 200k miles for a long time though.  The problem with new cars, is that they have so many more things to go wrong that owning a 200k+ mile rolling computer is going to get extremely frustrating in a hurry.  And a lot of the engines themselves aren't built for the same longevity or useful lifespan.  And with peripherals that will wear out and be more of a cost+pain to replace as well.  They're designing more and more obsolescence back into cars...like the really old days...like before i existed. 

 

On 10/10/2017 at 5:40 AM, patdt13 said:

Certain brands I'd agree with you. Subaru and Nissan though both make good cars that can get over 200. Hell, most foreign car makers do.

Yeah.  It's not new for cars to run over 200k miles.  But i'd wager on those cars that have been proven to run over 200k miles fairly regularly...over the newest ones being churned out now.

[LETSGOBROWNIES]

4 hours ago, Tugboat said:

 

Eh, if we're comparing to some of the shoddy build quality that plagued the domestics back in the day, fair point i guess.  There have been lots of car makers building cars that will work well past 200k miles for a long time though.  The problem with new cars, is that they have so many more things to go wrong that owning a 200k+ mile rolling computer is going to get extremely frustrating in a hurry.  And a lot of the engines themselves aren't built for the same longevity or useful lifespan.  And with peripherals that will wear out and be more of a cost+pain to replace as well.  They're designing more and more obsolescence back into cars...like the really old days...like before i existed. 

 

Yeah.  It's not new for cars to run over 200k miles.  But i'd wager on those cars that have been proven to run over 200k miles fairly regularly...over the newest ones being churned out now.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/18/automobiles/as-cars-are-kept-longer-200000-is-new-100000.html?_r=2&ref=business&pagewanted=all&

Quite simply, they weren't better back in the day, at least not from a milage/durability standpoint.

And yes, there are more electronics, that's the trade off for having the incredible level of comfort, convenience, performance and capability that modern autos do.

The current f150 with the Ecoboost, like the one referenced in the article that showed no measurable wear after 150k on engine parts, can  tow 12k pounds, has a 3k payload, goes 0-60 in sub 6 seconds, seats 5 adults comfortably, has heated and cooled seats, a heated stearing wheel, adaptive cruise control, rear cameras for both towing and safety, electronic locking diffs, traction control, and a 10 speed electronic transmission that allows the 375hp/450tq motor to get 20+ mph on the highway and 17-18 mixed driving.

Tell me about a vehicle from back in the day that could do any of that?  And then show me where the testing after 150k miles showed no measurable wear.

If your argument is that vehicles today may cost more as they age, that may be true, but they also do more.  The reason the peripherals on newer cars wear out sooner than older cars is because older cars didn't have them.

I guess what I'm saying is I agree with your initial point, you sound like a crotchety old man.

[Tugboat]

10 hours ago, LETSGOBROWNIES said:

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/18/automobiles/as-cars-are-kept-longer-200000-is-new-100000.html?_r=2&ref=business&pagewanted=all&

Quite simply, they weren't better back in the day, at least not from a milage/durability standpoint.

And yes, there are more electronics, that's the trade off for having the incredible level of comfort, convenience, performance and capability that modern autos do.

The current f150 with the Ecoboost, like the one referenced in the article that showed no measurable wear after 150k on engine parts, can  tow 12k pounds, has a 3k payload, goes 0-60 in sub 6 seconds, seats 5 adults comfortably, has heated and cooled seats, a heated stearing wheel, adaptive cruise control, rear cameras for both towing and safety, electronic locking diffs, traction control, and a 10 speed electronic transmission that allows the 375hp/450tq motor to get 20+ mph on the highway and 17-18 mixed driving.

Tell me about a vehicle from back in the day that could do any of that?  And then show me where the testing after 150k miles showed no measurable wear.

If your argument is that vehicles today may cost more as they age, that may be true, but they also do more.  The reason the peripherals on newer cars wear out sooner than older cars is because older cars didn't have them.

I guess what I'm saying is I agree with your initial point, you sound like a crotchety old man.

I think we're talking about two completely different "back in the days" here.  I'm not talking about 60s, 70s cars like that article.  Those things have all either fallen to pieces, or are garage queen "classic cars" now.  I don't really consider that "back in the day" because frankly, i was not alive.  But yeah, those cars are notoriously not all that well built.

I'm talking about the vehicles from that surge of European/Japanese prominence in the domestic market.  Where they pushed aggressively on build quality, reliability, fuel efficiency.  The 80s, 90s, even early 2000s era stuff.  There's a ton of very durable, well built, long-lived stuff from that era.  Obviously some poorly built clunkers to steer clear of as well, but that's the golden age of quality build, with relative simplicity as far as i'm concerned.  And the golden age of those motors that you see running 300k miles.  Where the attention to detail, materials, and manufacturing had caught up and led to basically "overbuilt" cars.  Like most of the long-lived examples in that very article.

 

As for all those gadgets, features, capabilities, listing the specs of a new F150 doesn't really mean anything with regard to what i'm talking about.  Nobody is disputing that they're packed with gadgets and features.  Many of which are unnecessary imo.  My point is exactly that they're probably going to cost more to keep on the road as they roll into the high mileage territory, and that i'm skeptical of something like that ecoboost engine rolling into the 300k mile range with any consistency.  Because there is more to go wrong.  And it will.

 

I mean, most people aren't buying new cars anticipating they're going to have the same vehicle into the 200k+ mile range anyway.  But that's kinda my point.  There's a throwaway mentality creeping right back into things.  It's about packing things with as much technology, and wringing every last ounce of performance out of everything today.  Who cares what happens tomorrow?  When the electrical gremlins invade in 7-10 years?  I'll be on a new car by then!  Throw it on the scrap heap!

 

[LETSGOBROWNIES]

1 hour ago, Tugboat said:

I think we're talking about two completely different "back in the days" here.  I'm not talking about 60s, 70s cars like that article.  Those things have all either fallen to pieces, or are garage queen "classic cars" now.  I don't really consider that "back in the day" because frankly, i was not alive.  But yeah, those cars are notoriously not all that well built.

I'm talking about the vehicles from that surge of European/Japanese prominence in the domestic market.  Where they pushed aggressively on build quality, reliability, fuel efficiency.  The 80s, 90s, even early 2000s era stuff.  There's a ton of very durable, well built, long-lived stuff from that era.  Obviously some poorly built clunkers to steer clear of as well, but that's the golden age of quality build, with relative simplicity as far as i'm concerned.  And the golden age of those motors that you see running 300k miles.  Where the attention to detail, materials, and manufacturing had caught up and led to basically "overbuilt" cars.  Like most of the long-lived examples in that very article.

 

As for all those gadgets, features, capabilities, listing the specs of a new F150 doesn't really mean anything with regard to what i'm talking about.  Nobody is disputing that they're packed with gadgets and features.  Many of which are unnecessary imo.  My point is exactly that they're probably going to cost more to keep on the road as they roll into the high mileage territory, and that i'm skeptical of something like that ecoboost engine rolling into the 300k mile range with any consistency.  Because there is more to go wrong.  And it will.

 

I mean, most people aren't buying new cars anticipating they're going to have the same vehicle into the 200k+ mile range anyway.  But that's kinda my point.  There's a throwaway mentality creeping right back into things.  It's about packing things with as much technology, and wringing every last ounce of performance out of everything today.  Who cares what happens tomorrow?  When the electrical gremlins invade in 7-10 years?  I'll be on a new car by then!  Throw it on the scrap heap!

 

Maybe..but a lot of people either do need those features (capability) or want them.  

If you don't want that you can always buy a base model that doesn't have all of those features. That same F150 can be hard with a 5.0 instead of the Ecoboost.

As far as how these current models will hold up, only time will tell.

[Tugboat]

2 hours ago, LETSGOBROWNIES said:

Maybe..but a lot of people either do need those features (capability) or want them.  

If you don't want that you can always buy a base model that doesn't have all of those features. That same F150 can be hard with a 5.0 instead of the Ecoboost.

As far as how these current models will hold up, only time will tell.

Time, and my magic crystal ball imo.