Back from the Toyota and the Subaru dealerships - complete with walking the lots, listening to salesmens' spiels, and test drives.
Milady is taking a nap.
I believe that she is plumb tuckered out.
____________________________________________
Question - anyone have any thoughts on quiet cars?
The only quiet car I see mentioned these days is the Lexus - and that is probably a bit too pricey for this situation.
____________________________________________________
Before going through our thoughts on the Toyotas and the Subarus, some replies to earlier posts:
QUOTE
European safety tests - might be worth putting them up against North American reports and see how they compare.
Thank you. I took a close look at the provided link.
It has been my impression over the years that crash tests are probably better than nothing but they are also pretty far disconnected from reality.
They're like giving an IQ test to a football player. Just because he has a high IQ does not mean that he is going to be a good football player.
Just because a car gets a good score on a crash test does not mean that it is safe car.
Crash tests as currently publicized appear to me to be designed and intended to conceal the safety differences between different sizes and classes of cars.
For example - you can take a subcompact car and take a large car and crash each against a wall and get similar safety data. But if you were to have a head-on crash between the same subcompact car and the same large car, survivability would be about six times greater in the large car than the small car.
While crash tests conceal the safety difference between small and large cars, insurance data demonstrates the safety differences between small and large cars loud and clear.
Another example: SUVS and safety. Frontal and side crash tests may show an SUV to be relatively safe - but around 40% of fatalities in SUVs are from rollover accidents, which have typically not been measured in crash testing.
Again, the crash tests conceal what the insurance data have long shown loud and clear.
Real world insurance data gives you a great reality check vs. the intentional obscuration of information via crash test data.
The problem with insurance data is the time delay factor - the real world insurance data will always be behind this year's model - great for guidance if you are buying used, but more limited if you are buying new.
But then again - crash test data tends to be limited to certain models or tends to be a year or two behind, as well.
Whatever the limitations, the insurance industry fatality data is much more real than the very artificial crash test data and it does show you real world trends.
__________________________________________________
QUOTE
No one has mentioned the Jaguar 3.0 X-Type.
Thank you for bringing it up. We had not considered a Jag.
I have long thought of Jags as beautiful sexy expensive cars of exceptionally poor build quality made in England.
It is obviously time to reconsider.
Let's do it:
A quick look at the 2006 Consumer Reports reveals a worse-than-average repair record on the X-type for three years running. The mini-review notes below average reliability, below average owner satisfaction, and average depreciation - and the review notes pronounced road noise.
Willis' car book (2005) notes very high repair costs, high owner complaint rates and very high insurance rates.
I cannot come up with Insurance Institute fatality data on the Jaguar X-type.
Milady values safety and reliability. I also value quiet, which is a harder one.
It looks like there may be better choices for us at this time.
_______________________________________________
QUOTE
did forget to mention the Saturn Vue...... very nice, and around $23 g's
Edmonds rates it high!!
Consumer Reports (April 2006) gives the Vue its worst reliability rating, a below average owner satisfaction rating and indicates that it has average depreciation:
"We found the AWD system slow to respond; the front wheels spun before the rear wheels engaged . . . the Vue received a Poor in the IIHS side-crash test. A tip-up in the government rollover test is also cause for concern." (particularly considering that the Vue does not have Electronic Stability Control - Epaminondas)
Willis' "The Car Book" (2005) gives the 2005 version an average overall rating.
I cannot find any Insurance Institute fatality information at this time. Historically, Saturns have had higher than average fatality rates compared to other cars.
I think there may be better choices for us at this time.
_______________________________________________
QUOTE
Jan & I really like our 2003 CR-V with real-time 4WD.
Sounds good - let's give it a shot:
Consumer Reports (April 2006) recommends the CR-V, indicating excellent reliability, above average owner satisfaction, and excellent depreciation. Looks good!
"Road noise is our only complaint." Uh-oh - this may be a deal-killer - quiet is a big priority for me.
Willis' "The Car Book" (2005) notes that the 2005 has high repair costs and a relatively poor warranty. It also notes average rollover despite a standard "roll stability system."
I cannot find any Insurance Institute fatality data on the CR-V. Every Honda I can find fatality data for scores better than average - so Honda does seem to be taking safety into account - though Honda does not seem to be an out-in-front leader when it comes to safety.
Not a bad choice.
We may take a look.
_______________________________________________
Nissan Murano:
Consumer Reports (2006): above average reliability, above average owner satisfaction, excellent depreciation.
"Continuously Variable Transmission" - sounds interesting.
"Premium fuel" - Hmmm. Not that much more than Regular, I suppose.
Willis' "the Car Book" (2005) is a bit limited on available information. It notes inexpensive insurance rates but a high number of consumer complaints. A mixed bag.
No insurance Institute data on the Murano, but Nissan has two vehicles in the top 12 safe cars - and other Nissans score better than industry averages. It looks like Nissan is taking safety pretty seriously.
I think it will be worth our taking a look.
And it looks like I need to get the 2006 version of Willis "The Car Book." I'll order it tonight. Being one year out of date is not helping.
_____________________________________________
QUOTE
I considered the RAV4 when i was looking last year but passed on it for two reasons, the size then was no bigger overall than my Celica, believe it or not.
Of course I believe you.
My how it's grown:
Celica - curb weight about 2500 pounds (depending on the year)
2005 RAV4 - curb weight about 2965 pounds
2006 RAV4 - curb weight about 3512 pounds (too many trips to McDonald's?)
QUOTE
The Toyota Rav4 for 2006 is a new model. Much of the safety/death rates you are seeing is not for this particular design. Theoretically the new build is larger and possibly safer but that is an unknown.
Understood. Agreed.
I always try avoid new cars in their first two years of production - it takes a little while to work out the kinks (remember Mac OS 10.0? - it took a few years to get the bugs out). I have explained this concept to Milady - do not a bleeding-edger be - complete with the auto repair reliability charts from the October 2005 Consumer Reports, which makes this issue graphically clear in regards to automobiles. If she decides on the RAV4, I believe she would wait for the 2007 model to come out in August before buying. That way she'll get at least one year of bug fixes in.
She is also talking about going for a used RAV4 from the 2003-2005 era - enough time after the 2001 redesign for the bugs to be worked out, but still prior to the new 2006 redesign.
We'll see.
Safety issues:
The Insurance Institute safety data has three Toyotas and one Lexus in their top 12 safe cars (Mercedes and Nissan each have two). Not too shabby. I doubt that this is blind luck - it looks to me that Toyota/Lexus must have a corporate commitment to designing for safety that goes well beyond random chance or mere PR.
The proof is in the insurance industry fatality results.
We have now looked at a 2006 RAV4. Three and a half inches wider than its predecessor - this should allow for greater rollover resistance if designed properly - and Toyota now does have a well-established record of designing for safety. An incredible number of airbags - in addition to the usual front air bags they have side of your seat (it pops forward out of your lateral seat back), side of head, and side body curtain air bags. Unfortunately, all but the front air bags are optional. I asked the salesmen - he stated that 90% of people are going with the complete airbag option. I asked who doesn't, and he quoted: "I've been driving for 40 years and I've never needed air bags!"
QUOTE
The electronic AWD that the RAV4 has is the 'on demand' kind that senses when it is needed and kicks in. Electronic stability control is a different animal so don't confuse the two.
Understood. Of key importance in understanding the difference between the Toyotas and the Subarus, and in shopping for AWD automobiles in general.
In the RAV4 it looks like all this stuff - AWD and Electronic Stability Control - are becoming one.
Vehicle stability control, traction control and various braking technologies are included in all RAV4 models. It looks like this is integrated into the AWD, as well.
The Murano looks pretty good as per Consumer Reports and as per Willis' Car Book. I will encourage Milady to take a look.
Question - how quiet is the Murano?
Internal car noise is becoming a key point.
All for now.
Thanks for all the ideas -
Epaminondas
