Do cars really need to be good to sell?

Started by 280Z Turbo, March 02, 2010, 11:52:40 PM

3.0L V6

Quote from: ifcar on March 06, 2010, 12:57:13 PM
If I drive it into the ground I have no resale value. Besides, I have no idea how well it was maintained in the first 96,000 miles -- and judging by cosmetic condition, I'm not inclined to assume it was well.

I'd sooner take the value out of this car and put it into something else that would have all or mostly my own miles.

Fair enough. To each their own. Not to hijack this thread too much, but what did you have in mind?

ChrisV

Quote from: SVT666 on March 06, 2010, 12:34:57 AM
In his eyes there is no such thing as an ugly car.  I'm just surprised by his comment about the Aztek.

I've never, EVER said that. Or even implied that. I've ALWAYS said the Aztek was ugly. The proof was in the fact that they predicted 100k annual sales and barely broke 40k total sales over the entire run of the vehicle. It was good at what it was supposed to do and was priced well for what it contained. But the container put EVERYONE off, even most of the people that bought it (hell, when I was looking at them, the price/function equation was almost right enough to buy one and get a vanity plate that said "so what." But it wasn't quite right enough, even for me, to get over the looks)

I've also brought up cars like the Citroen Ami 6 and Daimler SP as examples of truly ugly cars that are loved despite their looks, but as contrast to fairly inoffensive modern cars that some people with limited experience call "fugly." Possibly if you've got the impression that I thought there are no ugly cars, it's because I've said something similar in response to someone (maybe even you) saying a particular modern car is "fugly" when it's merely dull bland in comparison to a really good looking modern car, but not bad at all in comparison to the real stinkers of the past.

Anyhow, that particular bit of the response was aimed at people belittling buyers for choosing a car because they thought it looked good. We all make that choice, and few will buy a car they think looks bad. If we didn't care about looks, no one here would ever be concerned if a car was ugly and would never comment on it or say they wouldn't buy a car BECAUSE it was ugly, now would they? ;)





Like a fine Detroit wine, this vehicle has aged to budgetary perfection...

Rupert

Novarolla-Miata-Trooper-Jeep-Volvo-Trooper-Ranger-MGB-Explorer-944-Fiat-Alfa-XTerra

13 cars, 60 cylinders, 52 manual forward gears and 9 automatic, 2 FWD, 42 doors, 1988 average year of manufacture, 3 convertibles, 22 average mpg, and no wheel covers.
PRO TENACIA NULLA VIA EST INVIA

SVT_Power

Quote from: MX793 on March 06, 2010, 02:08:25 PM
I've heard that the clutch in a Focus is a real bear to change.  Like you have to drop the motor to get at the clutch.

Sounds like a contour. I wouldn't be surprised if the Focus was the same - same transaxle, the Zetec was available in the contour as well.
"On a given day, a given circumstance, you think you have a limit. And you then go for this limit and you touch this limit, and you think, 'Okay, this is the limit'. And so you touch this limit, something happens and you suddenly can go a little bit further. With your mind power, your determination, your instinct, and the experience as well, you can fly very high." - Ayrton Senna

AutobahnSHO

Quote from: MX793 on March 06, 2010, 02:08:25 PM
I've heard that the clutch in a Focus is a real bear to change.  Like you have to drop the motor to get at the clutch.

FWD clutch changes suck.
My SHO you had to practically remove the engine. The engine and tranny are mounted onto a "subframe" which is bolted to the frame from underneath. And you can't slide the tranny off to get to the clutch without getting that subframe out of the way. So I suspended the engine, moved the front exhaust off so I could drop the subframe, then could remove the tranny to do the clutch.
PITA.
Will

2o6




That made me laugh. You can see the entire rear wheel below the body!

AutobahnSHO

#96
BTW Aztek version2 sells pretty well, doesn't it?







(I realize the back and front are very much restyled, but the basic dimensions (and muffler!) are the same, aren't they?!
Will

ifcar

Quote from: sportyaccordy on March 06, 2010, 01:46:25 PM
I would get a trustworthy mechanic to give it a once over. 96,000 miles is nothing, and if the car doesn't have any known common issues that might pop up it's definitely cheaper to keep her than to sell + go for something you don't know about.

If I sell a 2001 Focus with 110k miles in late 2010, I could probably get pretty close to $3k for it to put toward something nicer and with more life in it that I can keep for even longer.

ifcar

Quote from: 3.0L V6 on March 06, 2010, 05:38:26 PM
Fair enough. To each their own. Not to hijack this thread too much, but what did you have in mind?

Basically, my rules this time around will be manual transmission, compact or subcompact, under $8k if used and under $12k if new, under as much warranty as possible, as new and low-mileage as possible, and relatively inexpensive to insure. (When I actually shop, I'll try to get insurance quotes for anything on my short list -- that will make a huge difference over the years.)

A newer Focus could certainly be high on my list. A lot of Kia Spectras look promising. Forenza/Renos are fairly rare and are rather lousy car but have terrible resale value (good for me) and a fully transferable long warranty. A local dealer is right now offering a new 1.6-liter Kia Soul for $10,800; Accents/Rios are also possible. Versa 6-speed hatchbacks are rare, but dealers seem to offer them for under $11k when they do stock them -- but they don't have as much warranty as I'd like for that much money.

It will just come down to what's priced where when I'm shopping. If I'm even shopping.

2o6

Quote from: AutobahnSHO on March 06, 2010, 10:00:35 PM
BTW Aztek version2 sells pretty well, doesn't it?







(I realize the back and front are very much restyled, but the basic dimensions (and muffler!) are the same, aren't they?!


They're mechanically identical.

Galaxy

So, what is the Aztek designer doing today? That might be a bit difficult on the resume. On the other hand, the guy who styled the Audi A2 got a second chance on the Murcielago. That might be why the Murcielago is a tad fat looking from some angles.

SVT666

Quote from: Galaxy on March 07, 2010, 12:33:07 PM
So, what is the Aztek designer doing today? That might be a bit difficult on the resume. On the other hand, the guy who styled the Audi A2 got a second chance on the Murcielago. That might be why the Murcielago is a tad fat looking from some angles.
I thought that too until I saw one in person.  I don't think it looks fat at all anymore.

2o6

Quote from: Galaxy on March 07, 2010, 12:33:07 PM
So, what is the Aztek designer doing today? That might be a bit difficult on the resume. On the other hand, the guy who styled the Audi A2 got a second chance on the Murcielago. That might be why the Murcielago is a tad fat looking from some angles.


Wayne Cherry did the Solstice and the Cadillac Sixteen.



Galaxy

Quote from: 2o6 on March 07, 2010, 01:10:26 PM

Wayne Cherry did the Solstice and the Cadillac Sixteen.


Oh? well then I guess he is not that bad afterall.  :ohyeah:

AutobahnSHO

Quote from: 2o6 on March 07, 2010, 11:17:31 AM

They're mechanically identical.

The rendezvous seems to do better-

Funny how the styling could make out out of committee so totally WACK. (Aztek)
Will