BG Auto I summon thee. 1st time buying an actual car.

[bluefan]

I always get the dealer to say and write down what total costs come down to, including everything like taxes, freight etc... Basically the amount I would see coming out of my bank account.

Then I start the haggling process. If they refuse to do it, just start walking out.

[Kohan]

If you aren't driving in an urban environment, there is absolutely no reason to buy a hybrid. The benefits of a hybrid come from constantly using the breaks, which charges the battery. Also, these cars are relatively tough to sell once they get up in mileage due to the price of maintaining the battery.

This is a shortsighted and ultimately wrong assessment, and considering that you're otherwise a car enthusiast, I'm somewhat disappointed by it. However, I know that a lot of traditional auto enthusiasts are unfortunately not as excited about hybrid and electric technologies, and I love both, so I'm going to explain why this is wrong.

Yes, you charge the battery when you're using the brakes, but you also charge them while coasting at speed, and more so while coasting downhill. Approaching a slight change in elevation on an otherwise straight highway? You've just started dipping into your battery reserves. Climbing a hill or a mountain? Battery kicks in more, and then it recharges when you're descending. Hit a spot of traffic? Naturally, it boosts acceleration every single time you're working your way back up to speed. Passing? Same.

Hybrids, whether you drive in urban environments or have lengthy highway commutes—the latter being my situation—are always going to have better MPG.

Like CNG and diesel vehicles, they also have less moving part wear and tear—sans the things that are obviously going to need to be serviced just as often, such as oil, tires, and so on—which, unless you've got a lemon, makes them less expensive to maintain overall than a conventional automatic. Asserting that battery maintenance is incredibly expensive is also patently wrong, as not only are the batteries warrantied for a very long time, but the cars are also common enough to where third party alternatives exist.

As for their being a hard sell—as mentioned, hybrid models generally tend to hold their value better. The major reasons people don't buy them are misconceptions, like the one about MPG you mentioned, or wrongly presuming they're universally much more expensive than traditional combustion cars. They're not. Unless you're paying an inflated sticker price, at absolute worst they're a wash, and at best they're a savings.

[Brill Weave]

Like CNG and diesel vehicles, they also have less moving part wear and tear—sans the things that are obviously going to need to be serviced just as often, such as oil, tires, and so on—which, unless you've got a lemon, makes them less expensive to maintain overall than a conventional automatic. Asserting that battery maintenance is incredibly expensive is also patently wrong, as not only are the batteries warrantied for a very long time, but the cars are also common enough to where third party alternatives exist.

As for their being a hard sell—as mentioned, hybrid models generally tend to hold their value better. The major reasons people don't buy them are misconceptions, like the one about MPG you mentioned, or wrongly presuming they're universally much more expensive than traditional combustion cars. They're not. Unless you're paying an inflated sticker price, at absolute worst they're a wash, and at best they're a savings.

This is actually incorrect from the studies we've done. I can't link them because they are proprietary, so don't ask. But the end result was that Hybrids require service on average, the same amount as a standard non hybrid vehicle. The biggest feather in the hybrid's cap is gas mileage and it's a huge feather. Not all hybrids hold their value either. Certain ones will and they are easily sold used(Honda is pretty much what we've recognized as the highest resale value over time.)

To be perfectly honest when the AGM batteries roll out and start/stop technology is implemented in every new car, pure hybrids will really fall by the way side. With start/stop technology all vehicles will end up being a pseudo hybrid. It is designed to cut down on emissions and cuts down on gas usage which will greatly increase MPG in city and highway. For those that don't know about it the technology basically cuts the engine whenever the vehicle is at a stop. When you press the gas it starts again.

This will have a massive downside however. The start/stop technology vehicles require the use of AGM(absorbent glass mat) batteries. I'm not going to go into the specifics on them here's the long and short of it. Your standard car battery is designed to last 3 - 5 years before failure. They run generally from 100 - 190 for a "name" brand from East Penn Deka, Johnson Controls, or Exide. AGM batteries have a lifespan of 1 - 3 years and generally will cost twice as much. If you live in a hot climate(Arizona in particular) you will be lucky if it lasts more than a year. In the end you're essentially signing on for a more expensive battery that will need replaced twice as often for the savings on gas.

[FNH]

Dodge
Dart - Too new for me to have much input on them. I've heard good things but they are a bit cramped.

Wrong. I fit comfortably @ 6' 4" 245lbs

[Brill Weave]

Wrong. I fit comfortably @ 6' 4" 245lbs

lol like I said I don't have much input on them, too new. They are a sharp looking car though imo.

[Meresgi]

So another question is how do people feel about leasing? Was thinking about it today, to lease till the new Tesla comes out. By then should be enough charging stations here in MD and i'm sure i'll have one over at NASA and near my apt.

[Kohan]

This is actually incorrect from the studies we've done. I can't link them because they are proprietary, so don't ask. But the end result was that Hybrids require service on average, the same amount as a standard non hybrid vehicle. The biggest feather in the hybrid's cap is gas mileage and it's a huge feather. Not all hybrids hold their value either. Certain ones will and they are easily sold used(Honda is pretty much what we've recognized as the highest resale value over time.)

I did try to cover that with my closing statement (about their potentially being a wash). With better MPG, but occasional and potentially more expensive maintenance—such as work on proprietary tech that you'll need to visit the dealer for—it can even out. Then again, it might not, and that's due to the MPG advantages you mentioned. In either case, I would still prefer a hybrid, considering that they may also have nicer bells and whistles than their sister, non-hybrid models.

In short, I don't actually think we disagree here.

To be perfectly honest when the AGM batteries roll out and start/stop technology is implemented in every new car, pure hybrids will really fall by the way side. With start/stop technology all vehicles will end up being a pseudo hybrid. It is designed to cut down on emissions and cuts down on gas usage which will greatly increase MPG in city and highway. For those that don't know about it the technology basically cuts the engine whenever the vehicle is at a stop. When you press the gas it starts again.

This will have a massive downside however. The start/stop technology vehicles require the use of AGM(absorbent glass mat) batteries. I'm not going to go into the specifics on them here's the long and short of it. Your standard car battery is designed to last 3 - 5 years before failure. They run generally from 100 - 190 for a "name" brand from East Penn Deka, Johnson Controls, or Exide. AGM batteries have a lifespan of 1 - 3 years and generally will cost twice as much. If you live in a hot climate(Arizona in particular) you will be lucky if it lasts more than a year. In the end you're essentially signing on for a more expensive battery that will need replaced twice as often for the savings on gas.

Don't Toyotas already use AGM batteries, or am I wrong? I don't believe Civic hybrids do.

As an aside, due to the regenerative braking technology—and you may know this as well—the brake rotors generally tend to last longer, as they don't experience the same amount of wear they would in a non-hybrid. I would wonder what your studies I've never seen would show, but then again, brakes are an area where unwise consumers are frequently gouged, and I don't know if they account for that—and of course, you can't tell me, so this is all silly talk at this point.

Regardless, lots of reasons that, at worst, you'll break even cost-wise with a hybrid compared to a conventional vehicle, but there are other potential perks. I personally find them a savings, and this is with taking my buying as many parts on my own into consideration, as I've always done that for all of my cars.

EDIT: Oh, and about leasing: http://lifehacker.com/5858640/should...or-lease-a-car

[Plow]

I would have to disagree. If you're talking about '90s models Accords, sure. Today's Accords are bloated and boring. If you want excitement, you shouldn't buy any of the cars you mentioned. And an Altima—really? I'd rank the modern Altima lower than the modern Civic, which is more like an Accord nowadays anyway (further defeating the purpose of having an Accord).

he's looking at a volkswagon diesel and the new 4 door CRX, didn't think it was about excitement

those are the kind of cars my dad threatened to stick me with if I got tickets in my Mustang

accords and altimas and shit are made just to be solid, nice cars, and that's it; a civic is essentially just a bit smaller version of an accord with some cheaper components and more sports packages/options available; my experience in renting a whole lot of different cars has a ranking of experiences with cars like that going something like:

Chevy Malibu/Impala (too expensive but gawd they're nice)
Maxima (too expensive)
Altima
Accord
Mazda 6
Mazda 3
Civic/Focus/etc.
Camry (god their seats are soooo bad)

I haven't ended up with a Chevy Cruze but I hear they're really nice, too, they're slightly smaller versions of the malibu basically.

[Abandon]

can we put a limit on how often plow is allowed to post in general monthly?

[Kohan]

he's looking at a volkswagon diesel and the new 4 door CRX, didn't think it was about excitement

You were talking about a more "pleasant experience." I presume that meant something, but considering that modern Accords are hardly any different than modern Civics (which have evolved considerably beyond their humble beginnings), they are basically an irrelevant model. There have even been rumblings of Honda doing away with them altogether. You basically said this yourself by saying that a Civic is a smaller (though "simpler" would perhaps be more accurate) version of an Accord.

All things considered, you're basically telling someone to waste money on minute differences they are never going to notice.

[Plow]

No, I'm not.

They have nicer seats, better stereos, better, longer lasting materials in the doors, dashboards, etc.

If you care nothing whatsoever for how nice the car is, get a Yugo and be done with it.


If you want the least unpleasant option, stay away from the dirt cheap models of the major brands, you'd get a better car from Kia.

[Meresgi]

@Kohan

Off of that link I found this:

http://www.dinkytown.net/java/BuyvsLease.html

For a $14,000 and $1,000 down at 6% sales tax..it's showing me the net cost is basically the same leasing vs owning.

[Plow]

But hey, fuck the guy that's rented all these cars for weeks at a time and has direct experience driving hundreds and occasionally a couple thousand miles with them, he has a name we don't like round these parts.

[Abandon]

p. much.

[BaneTheBrawler]

cmon, plow, as much as we all know you like plowing, the guy doesn't want to move snow.

[Plow]

Hey, it's just my 2 cents, not like I'm being offensive here or anything.

If you're happy with a Civic, more power to you, go for it, you won't be disappointed.

But if you add a year of age and the according 10k or so miles, you'd probably get an Accord for cheaper and have a better car. And in my opinion comparing the same year/mileage, the extra thousand or so for a used or 2 thousand for a new are quite worth it for an Accord.

[Kohan]

No, I'm not.

They have nicer seats, better stereos, better, longer lasting materials in the doors, dashboards, etc.

If you care nothing whatsoever for how nice the car is, get a Yugo and be done with it.

If you want the least unpleasant option, stay away from the dirt cheap models of the major brands, you'd get a better car from Kia.

I understand that, both from this post and the succeeding one, you really, really want to be right, and you think you're just being given a hard time because you're Plow—but you're absolutely wrong. This isn't even a matter of opinion.

The base model Accord and Civic come with the same quality steering wheel, the same seats, the same stereo system, the same features for said stereo system (Bluetooth, Pandora, et cetera), the navigation system, the same safety system, the same backup camera...

It's not even a question that they're virtually identical cars. Just look at Honda's own fucking site, for crying out loud. Go ahead—click through all the categories, and look at all the shit that overlaps between the two. Have a fucking blast.

http://automobiles.honda.com/accord-...fications.aspx

http://automobiles.honda.com/civic-s...fications.aspx

It's great that a slightly larger cabin and shittier MPG takes your breath away, but you don't know what the fuck you're talking about. Implying that a Civic is the same fucking thing as a low-end Kia, and probably a Versa or a Sonic and all those other budget cars—give me a break. The Civic isn't even Honda's fucking budget car anymore. It hasn't been for years.

@Kohan

Off of that link I found this:

http://www.dinkytown.net/java/BuyvsLease.html

For a $14,000 and $1,000 down at 6% sales tax..it's showing me the net cost is basically the same leasing vs owning.

Don't forget about some of the other potential charges mentioned on the original Lifehacker article, like additional charges for spilling over your allocated miles for a month. With your commute, that could be a problem. It may not be, of course, depending upon your lease terms.

[FNH]

@Kohan

Off of that link I found this:

http://www.dinkytown.net/java/BuyvsLease.html

For a $14,000 and $1,000 down at 6% sales tax..it's showing me the net cost is basically the same leasing vs owning.

Only problem I have with leasing is that it isn't yours. Idk if it is still the case but you used to get reamed if you went over the mileage limit and any kind of minor damage(shopping cart dings) needed to have an insurance claim done.

[Brill Weave]

Don't Toyotas already use AGM batteries, or am I wrong? I don't believe Civic hybrids do.

As an aside, due to the regenerative braking technology—and you may know this as well—the brake rotors generally tend to last longer, as they don't experience the same amount of wear they would in a non-hybrid. I would wonder what your studies I've never seen would show, but then again, brakes are an area where unwise consumers are frequently gouged, and I don't know if they account for that—and of course, you can't tell me, so this is all silly talk at this point.

Regardless, lots of reasons that, at worst, you'll break even cost-wise with a hybrid compared to a conventional vehicle, but there are other potential perks. I personally find them a savings, and this is with taking my buying as many parts on my own into consideration, as I've always done that for all of my cars.

EDIT: Oh, and about leasing: http://lifehacker.com/5858640/should...or-lease-a-car

To my knowledge right now it's Ford on most new cars and Toyota on some. The goal is supposedly within 2 years all cars come equipped with start/stop and AGM batteries.

[Plow]

I understand that, both from this post and the succeeding one, you really, really want to be right, and you think you're just being given a hard time because you're Plow—but you're absolutely wrong. This isn't even a matter of opinion.

The base model Accord and Civic come with the same quality steering wheel, the same seats, the same stereo system, the same features for said stereo system (Bluetooth, Pandora, et cetera), the navigation system, the same safety system, the same backup camera...

Except according to the links you posted, the accord has a better steering wheel on most packages, better seats, a stereo option standard on half the trim packages with more than twice the wattage and a subwoofer over any available on any Civic, more options on the stereo and navigation, and holy fuck you're full of shit. Not going to bother replying to the rest because I read it and it all hinges on this entirely utter bullshit paragraph.


Oh, except... who said anything about a "low end kia"? The top end Kias (lol) are the ones that are pretty solid.