OT: need a new car recommendation

[lawmatt78]

I, too, am going to be replacing a 3 Series (sooner or later).

I want something:
1) Roughly the same size - definitely not much bigger
2) With a stick
3) Probably a sedan; possibly a coupe
4) Reasonably fast, with good handling
5) Possibly w/ all wheel drive this time
6) Probably a certified pre-owned

This seems to leave me w/ BMW again, or Audi. My only issue (other than price....) is that both seem to have such artificial steering these days. I really prefer the hydraulic on my current car. To me, it just feels like more of a "driver's car," for lack of a better term, than the newer 3 series or the Audis that I've driven. But I'm not sure there's anything that better fits my criteria.

Some (e.g., Lexus) don't offer manual transmissions. And Mazda seems like a nice cheaper alternative, but I'm not sure any of the current ones are quick enough to get me excited.

So what's the move?

 

[RU4Real]

Originally posted by lawmatt78:
I, too, am going to be replacing a 3 Series (sooner or later).

I want something:
1) Roughly the same size - definitely not much bigger
2) With a stick
3) Probably a sedan; possibly a coupe
4) Reasonably fast, with good handling
5) Possibly w/ all wheel drive this time
6) Probably a certified pre-owned

This seems to leave me w/ BMW again, or Audi. My only issue (other than price....) is that both seem to have such artificial steering these days. I really prefer the hydraulic on my current car. To me, it just feels like more of a "driver's car," for lack of a better term, than the newer 3 series or the Audis that I've driven. But I'm not sure there's anything that better fits my criteria.

Some (e.g., Lexus) don't offer manual transmissions. And Mazda seems like a nice cheaper alternative, but I'm not sure any of the current ones are quick enough to get me excited.

So what's the move?

Unfortunately the days of pure hydraulic steering racks are gone. The A4 has had electronically-assisted steering since the B7 was introduced in 2005 and the latest gen 3 series has gone over to it as well. Manual transmissions are getting pretty rare, too.

The thing about the Mazda 6 that keeps it below hotter cars of the same size is that 184 hp isn't a lot these days, even though Mazda keeps the base curb weight down to about 3200 lbs. Zero to sixty comes in just under 8 seconds, which these days can only be categorized as "slow".

It looks great, it has great reflexes, but ultimately I find it unfulfilling. It's a little too light for its size and when driven hard there is some amount of chassis flex and it tends to bounce a bit when confronted with pavement irregularities. The Mazda 6 is, to me, a better-looking Honda Accord, a more dynamic Toyota Camry - but it's not a world class touring sedan.

Take a look at the Volvo S60. You'd have to get over being "that guy who drives a Volvo" and there's no manual transmission option, but you might be surprised at how well the S60 (particularly the T5 AWD variant) fits alongside the BMW and the Audi.

 

[S.B. Crumb]

Originally posted by RU4Real:

Originally posted by lawmatt78:
I, too, am going to be replacing a 3 Series (sooner or later).

I want something:
1) Roughly the same size - definitely not much bigger
2) With a stick
3) Probably a sedan; possibly a coupe
4) Reasonably fast, with good handling
5) Possibly w/ all wheel drive this time
6) Probably a certified pre-owned

This seems to leave me w/ BMW again, or Audi. My only issue (other than price....) is that both seem to have such artificial steering these days. I really prefer the hydraulic on my current car. To me, it just feels like more of a "driver's car," for lack of a better term, than the newer 3 series or the Audis that I've driven. But I'm not sure there's anything that better fits my criteria.

Some (e.g., Lexus) don't offer manual transmissions. And Mazda seems like a nice cheaper alternative, but I'm not sure any of the current ones are quick enough to get me excited.

So what's the move?

Unfortunately the days of pure hydraulic steering racks are gone. The A4 has had electronically-assisted steering since the B7 was introduced in 2005 and the latest gen 3 series has gone over to it as well. Manual transmissions are getting pretty rare, too.

The thing about the Mazda 6 that keeps it below hotter cars of the same size is that 184 hp isn't a lot these days, even though Mazda keeps the base curb weight down to about 3200 lbs. Zero to sixty comes in just under 8 seconds, which these days can only be categorized as "slow".

It looks great, it has great reflexes, but ultimately I find it unfulfilling. It's a little too light for its size and when driven hard there is some amount of chassis flex and it tends to bounce a bit when confronted with pavement irregularities. The Mazda 6 is, to me, a better-looking Honda Accord, a more dynamic Toyota Camry - but it's not a world class touring sedan.

Take a look at the Volvo S60. You'd have to get over being "that guy who drives a Volvo" and there's no manual transmission option, but you might be surprised at how well the S60 (particularly the T5 AWD variant) fits alongside the BMW and the Audi.

RU4Real, you were right about the s60. Took a test drive and was very impressed. Looks great inside and out and surprisingly powerful. Not to mention a CPO has a 7 year/100k bumper to bumper warranty.

Will be picking one up next month. Probably a '13. Only car that made me think twice was the BMW 320xi.

 

[RU4Real]

Originally posted by S.B. Crumb:

RU4Real, you were right about the s60. Took a test drive and was very impressed. Looks great inside and out and surprisingly powerful. Not to mention a CPO has a 7 year/100k bumper to bumper warranty.

Will be picking one up next month. Probably a '13. Only car that made me think twice was the BMW 320xi.

The very same car is high up on my short list. I've noticed, just checking Cars.com every so often, that a lot of people seem to be catching on - the previous abundance of 2013 S60 T5 AWD models seems to have dried up considerably.

 

[S.B. Crumb]

Originally posted by RU4Real:

Originally posted by S.B. Crumb:

RU4Real, you were right about the s60. Took a test drive and was very impressed. Looks great inside and out and surprisingly powerful. Not to mention a CPO has a 7 year/100k bumper to bumper warranty.

Will be picking one up next month. Probably a '13. Only car that made me think twice was the BMW 320xi.

The very same car is high up on my short list. I've noticed, just checking Cars.com every so often, that a lot of people seem to be catching on - the previous abundance of 2013 S60 T5 AWD models seems to have dried up considerably.

I've noticed that too . Better not take mine, bro. lol

 

[RUScrew85]

Originally posted by RU4Real:

Originally posted by S.B. Crumb:

RU4Real, you were right about the s60. Took a test drive and was very impressed. Looks great inside and out and surprisingly powerful. Not to mention a CPO has a 7 year/100k bumper to bumper warranty.

Will be picking one up next month. Probably a '13. Only car that made me think twice was the BMW 320xi.

The very same car is high up on my short list. I've noticed, just checking Cars.com every so often, that a lot of people seem to be catching on - the previous abundance of 2013 S60 T5 AWD models seems to have dried up considerably.

 

[RU4Real]

Originally posted by RUScrew85:

I expect the 2017 Raptor (which seems totally cool) is going to be well beyond $60k.

That's 'Vette money. It's an easy decision.

 

[AntiG]

Subaru pretty much any model.
Amongst the safest and well built cars in the market and handle off road diving superbly because they were originally built for it. Top rated 4WD system amongst all cars. Most of their models priced under 35k.

 

[AntiG]

Wouldn't the BMW equivalent for A3 be the 1-series (Which so far sounds like slapping a BMW logo on a WRX)

 

[RU4Real]

Originally posted by AntiG:
Wouldn't the BMW equivalent for A3 be the 1-series (Which so far sounds like slapping a BMW logo on a WRX)

It would, except that it's only available as a 3 or 5-door hatch and is not available in the U.S. Other than that, it is the ideal analog for the existing A3 hatch but not the new MQB-platformed A3 sedan.

The Volkswagen-Audi MQB platform currently underpins the A3 sedan (but not the hatchback!), the Volkswagen Golf/GTI and the new-gen Audi TT. It is suspected that the platform will also be transitioned to the next-gen Porsche Boxster, but Porsche keeps toying with that, at least publicly.



This post was edited on 3/10 8:08 PM by RU4Real

 

[RUScrew85]

Originally posted by RU4Real:

Originally posted by RUScrew85:

I expect the 2017 Raptor (which seems totally cool) is going to be well beyond $60k.

That's 'Vette money. It's an easy decision.

We all have our crosses to bear.

 

[e5fdny]

Originally posted by NoLondonBroil:
Subaru Outback. Bigger than the Forester.

Even RU4Real will acknowledge its functionality as the winning vehicle in the 2012 Cannonball to Orlando.

Yes, but you guys still make fun of me for having one with comments like this...

Even my own brother...

Were at a FB game with our kids and another Outback parks next to us and out hops the cast of Lilith Fair and he goes, "...just sayin' " LOL

I have done VERY well with it in the winter and am still amazed how much room I have in it.

But do take a peek at a Forrester.



.
This post was edited on 3/11 5:07 PM by e5fdny

 

[rutgersal]

Originally posted by lawmatt78:
I, too, am going to be replacing a 3 Series (sooner or later).
I want something:
1) Roughly the same size - definitely not much bigger
2) With a stick
3) Probably a sedan; possibly a coupe
4) Reasonably fast, with good handling
5) Possibly w/ all wheel drive this time
6) Probably a certified pre-owned
This seems to leave me w/ BMW again, or Audi. My only issue (other than price....) is that both seem to have such artificial steering these days. I really prefer the hydraulic on my current car. To me, it just feels like more of a "driver's car," for lack of a better term, than the newer 3 series or the Audis that I've driven. But I'm not sure there's anything that better fits my criteria.
Some (e.g., Lexus) don't offer manual transmissions. And Mazda seems like a nice cheaper alternative, but I'm not sure any of the current ones are quick enough to get me excited.
So what's the move?

Try the BMW M235i xdrive. The electric steering is much improved in this car.

 

[RUfinal4]

I saw this article today which reviews the Santa Fe Sport. At the end they do a comparison vs. other vehicles in the class. While you need to test drive youself it does help to see what publications think.



Edmunds

 

[lawmatt78]

Originally posted by rutgersal:

Originally posted by lawmatt78:
I, too, am going to be replacing a 3 Series (sooner or later).
I want something:
1) Roughly the same size - definitely not much bigger
2) With a stick
3) Probably a sedan; possibly a coupe
4) Reasonably fast, with good handling
5) Possibly w/ all wheel drive this time
6) Probably a certified pre-owned
This seems to leave me w/ BMW again, or Audi. My only issue (other than price....) is that both seem to have such artificial steering these days. I really prefer the hydraulic on my current car. To me, it just feels like more of a "driver's car," for lack of a better term, than the newer 3 series or the Audis that I've driven. But I'm not sure there's anything that better fits my criteria.
Some (e.g., Lexus) don't offer manual transmissions. And Mazda seems like a nice cheaper alternative, but I'm not sure any of the current ones are quick enough to get me excited.
So what's the move?

Try the BMW M235i xdrive. The electric steering is much improved in this car.

I'll look into that. I've heard they are improving it in M models, but that it's unclear when the non-M models will have the improved steering.

 

[jcg878]

Originally posted by RU4Real:

Originally posted by ruknight87:
Corner,

I had fairly similar criteria to yours last October. I wound up buying a 2012 Nissan Murano with 20,000 miles on it. It was 2 1/2 years old and I got it for $24,000. The 2014 similarly equipped was $38,000. I thought that the $14,000 savings for 20,000 miles was a good value. It is a mid size SUV and the interior is surprisingly nice. It also has very good reliability ratings.

The Murano is nice.

it has a CVT. Burn it.

Not that you have any strong opinions on these matters, but why this one about CVTs? Is it how they jump to an engine speed and hold it when you're accelerating hard? Supposedly the new Murano is tuned to simulate gears and the engine revs like a conventional automatic. We're looking into one.

Anyone know how crash tests are scheduled, or how to find when something is going to be tested?

 

[NoLondonBroil]

Originally posted by e5fdny:

Originally posted by NoLondonBroil:
Subaru Outback. Bigger than the Forester.

Even RU4Real will acknowledge its functionality as the winning vehicle in the 2012 Cannonball to Orlando.

Yes, but you guys still make fun of me for having one with comments like this...

Even my own brother...

Were at a FB game with our kids and another Outback parks next to us and out hops the cast of Lilith Fair and he goes, "...just sayin' " LOL

I have done VERY well with it in the winter and am still amazed how much room I have in it.

But do take a peek at a Forrester.



.
This post was edited on 3/11 5:07 PM by e5fdny

So, one rainy day, I run into Trader Joe's to grab some crackers that my kid likes. I leave the store, throw the hood up on my jacket, and head to the parking lot.

For some reason, I can't get into my car. I keep unlocking it and hearing it unlock but the door won't open.

The owner of that Outback, who could be a dead ringer for Androgynous Pat from SNL walks up, very friendly, and praises me for my taste in cars. We could be twins! My car was, of course, parked one spot over.

I wanted to die inside.

 

[RU4Real]

Originally posted by jcg878:

Originally posted by RU4Real:

Originally posted by ruknight87:
Corner,

I had fairly similar criteria to yours last October. I wound up buying a 2012 Nissan Murano with 20,000 miles on it. It was 2 1/2 years old and I got it for $24,000. The 2014 similarly equipped was $38,000. I thought that the $14,000 savings for 20,000 miles was a good value. It is a mid size SUV and the interior is surprisingly nice. It also has very good reliability ratings.

The Murano is nice.

it has a CVT. Burn it.

Not that you have any strong opinions on these matters, but why this one about CVTs? Is it how they jump to an engine speed and hold it when you're accelerating hard? Supposedly the new Murano is tuned to simulate gears and the engine revs like a conventional automatic. We're looking into one.

Anyone know how crash tests are scheduled, or how to find when something is going to be tested?

Yeah, that's more or less it.

The original concept behind the CVT (which was productionalized by Subaru, btw) was to allow the engine to spend as much time as possible within the sweet spot of its torque curve. And maybe 15 years ago this was a bitchin' idea. But a couple of funny things have happened along the way.

First, the market rejected the concept, universally. People hated the way that engines hooked up to CVTs always felt like they were revving too hard and the transmission itself felt like an old manual tranny with a blown clutch. So the car makers started programming the transmissions to emulate "gears" in an effort to gain customer acceptance.

Which is fine, but it begs the question, "why bother?"

Then, car makers began to master the art of small, economical engines with twin-scroll turbochargers that did away with turbo lag and had torque curves that looked like the profile of a pool table - wide and flat. No longer did you need a transmission that optimized engine speed for the sweet spot in the curve because there effectively no longer was one.

So... why bother?

Finally, the invention of the dual clutch automatic transmission allowed geared devices to do a whole shitload of things that were perceived as "wrong" with traditional automatics. The torque converter is a thing of the past. Slow shifts are a thing of the past. Driveline losses associated with traditional automatics, likewise - a thing of the past. The modern DCT, DSG, whatever you want to call it, is a joy to drive.

And what's more, the efficient packaging of the dual clutch auto, along with its precise electronic programming, allows manufacturers to build them with a startling number of gears. The first production DSG (Volkswagen-Audi) had six gears. Now seven and eight gears are the norm and several companies are working on transmissions with nine and ten gears.

All of which, again, points us in the general direction of the CVT to ask, "why bother?"

Compared to an eight speed dual clutch automatic, CVTs are slow, inefficient, unpleasant to drive and what's more are subject to the requirement that the drive belt be replaced at some interval (typically about 100k) at startling cost.

It's a terrible device. From an engineering perspective, it commits the worst of all sins, in that it is effectively a solution in search of a problem.

The Murano is a great vehicle. Nissan's devotion to CVTs should encourage you to burn it anyway.

 

[NoLondonBroil]

Originally posted by RU4Real:

Originally posted by jcg878:

Originally posted by RU4Real:

Originally posted by ruknight87:
Corner,

I had fairly similar criteria to yours last October. I wound up buying a 2012 Nissan Murano with 20,000 miles on it. It was 2 1/2 years old and I got it for $24,000. The 2014 similarly equipped was $38,000. I thought that the $14,000 savings for 20,000 miles was a good value. It is a mid size SUV and the interior is surprisingly nice. It also has very good reliability ratings.

The Murano is nice.

it has a CVT. Burn it.

Not that you have any strong opinions on these matters, but why this one about CVTs? Is it how they jump to an engine speed and hold it when you're accelerating hard? Supposedly the new Murano is tuned to simulate gears and the engine revs like a conventional automatic. We're looking into one.

Anyone know how crash tests are scheduled, or how to find when something is going to be tested?

Yeah, that's more or less it.

The original concept behind the CVT (which was productionalized by Subaru, btw) was to allow the engine to spend as much time as possible within the sweet spot of its torque curve. And maybe 15 years ago this was a bitchin' idea. But a couple of funny things have happened along the way.

First, the market rejected the concept, universally. People hated the way that engines hooked up to CVTs always felt like they were revving too hard and the transmission itself felt like an old manual tranny with a blown clutch. So the car makers started programming the transmissions to emulate "gears" in an effort to gain customer acceptance.

Which is fine, but it begs the question, "why bother?"

Then, car makers began to master the art of small, economical engines with twin-scroll turbochargers that did away with turbo lag and had torque curves that looked like the profile of a pool table - wide and flat. No longer did you need a transmission that optimized engine speed for the sweet spot in the curve because there effectively no longer was one.

So... why bother?

Finally, the invention of the dual clutch automatic transmission allowed geared devices to do a whole shitload of things that were perceived as "wrong" with traditional automatics. The torque converter is a thing of the past. Slow shifts are a thing of the past. Driveline losses associated with traditional automatics, likewise - a thing of the past. The modern DCT, DSG, whatever you want to call it, is a joy to drive.

And what's more, the efficient packaging of the dual clutch auto, along with its precise electronic programming, allows manufacturers to build them with a startling number of gears. The first production DSG (Volkswagen-Audi) had six gears. Now seven and eight gears are the norm and several companies are working on transmissions with nine and ten gears.

All of which, again, points us in the general direction of the CVT to ask, "why bother?"

Compared to an eight speed dual clutch automatic, CVTs are slow, inefficient, unpleasant to drive and what's more are subject to the requirement that the drive belt be replaced at some interval (typically about 100k) at startling cost.

It's a terrible device. From an engineering perspective, it commits the worst of all sins, in that it is effectively a solution in search of a problem.

The Murano is a great vehicle. Nissan's devotion to CVTs should encourage you to burn it anyway.

This is a classic example of refusing to accept failure and pulling the plug.

I have no doubt that they continue to use CVTs because there is some senior engineer at Fuji who would lose face if the product he helped design or whatever got discarded.