I’d rather have my teen in a mid sized car as far as safety goes, I don’t understand their ‘short car’ interest.
I auggest you stop at the local bookstore and get a Consumer Reports Used Car Buyer’s Guide as well as any publication listing crash testing of sutomobiles (I’ll bet there’s one), then sit with your parents and have them review the publications and help you select a list of cars that meet their criteria.
Then, using that list, you can become and active part of the search.
Perhaps they are looking for a car that can be easily maneuvered, and can therefore prevent a collision from happening in the first place. I appreciate your point of view, but I would rather prevent a collision all together than simply survive one.
Overall safety record is higher with intermediates, according to some statistics I saw a while back. Not like they’re ‘big’ or anything.
Yep, here’s where you can read all about it:
http://finance.yahoo.com/insurance/article/105112/Reframing-the-Discussion-Around-Small-Car-Safety
I hear you, and the crash test ratings support your case. I am just not sure the crash test ratings of the Focus are bad enough to worry about.
Could it be low to the ground, or maybe a car for a short person?
the V6 mileage in the Malibu is within only a couple MPGs of the 4cyl(19/30 vs 21/31)
“the V6 mileage in the Malibu is within only a couple MPGs of the 4cyl(19/30 vs 21/31)”
That’s one of the reasons I recommended the V6 instead of the I4.
they think that it would be easier to park (not that im bad at parking) and that it would be less likely to tip.
Don’t worry about tipping, that’s really only a problem with truck-based SUVs. Smaller certainly is easier to park, but a mid size is not too bad, either.
Focus, Malibu, Cobalt, or Impala are all good choices. The Impala may be out of your price range, but they are very nice cars. Frankly, I would try to get a Malibu. It is almost as nice as the Impala, is cheaper, and is a very safe car. I feel that the 3 or 4 mpg difference between the Malibu and a Focus or Cobalt is more than offset in the fact that it is a bigger, safer, more powerful, and more luxurious car. You may also consider comparable Buicks, although they are almost certainly out of your price range.
A car made by an American company is different than a car assembled on US soil or a foreign car rebadged with an American nameplate. By definition, this includes only Chrysler and their domestic brands, GM and their domestic brands, and Ford and their domestic brands. This excludes rebadged cars like the Chevy Prizm (Toyota Corolla), Chevy Tracker (Suzuki Sidekick), Pontiac Vibe (Toyota Matrix), and possibly some others I am missing at this time. I am glad to hear that there are still people who still want to support Detroit and the American dream. People need to stop living in the '80s and give Detroit another chance.
People need to stop living in the '80s and give Detroit another chance.
Let me amend that and say, people should stop living in the 60’s and start thinking that all car companies are multinationals. We’ve been giving Detroit another chance every decade since the imports started showing up. Their response is to re badge import technology when financially expedient or make fleet cars that can’t compete.
They are and have been capable were capable of making quality products equal to any in the world (military and heavy equipment are examples); they chose not to do so and did only selectively when short term profits fell in line with their efforts.
How about the excellent Ford Fusion. Until now assembled in Mexico using Far East made transmission…another excellent example of Detroit iron…give me a break.
We should be buying cars that serve our needs, regardless of the manufacturer…not one that serves our “dreams”…you may have that kind of money to throw around, I don’t. Life in the world of the auto making has you hood winked into thinking they really care about the Red, White and Blue; when their real concern is the green, like everyone else.
The American consumer is a lab rat and our power is our ability to buy the best product made regardless of it’s name plate. Without continually making that choice, we’ll get Pintos and Corvairs again. To think otherwise makes us sound like car advertisement lackys.
We get good cars from GM and Ford only when they have to compete with the likes of Camrys and Accords !
“We get good cars from GM and Ford only when they have to compete with the likes of Camrys and Accords !”
I agree. Ford and GM are doing that quite admirably today.
Mark, my sister and brother give Chrysler a chance less than a decade ago, and they both had quality issues with their Chrysler minivans they haven’t had with their new vehicles, so if I fallow your advice, I would need to stop living in the 21st century. Is that possible?
You ignored where the parts are made in your “American company” statement. I maintain a Honda made with American labor and with American-made parts is more American than a Ford made with American labor and Chinese parts, but that is because I care more about the workers than I do the CEOs, CFOs, and COOs of GM, Ford, and Chrysler. Japanese CEOs, CFOs, and COOs get paid much less than their American counterparts compared to the people who build their cars. If you support upper management and their golden parachutes and company-owned Lear jet airplanes, instead of supporting American laborers, GM, Ford, and Chrysler are the way to go. If you support American workers, the choice isn’t quite so clear.
By the way, I agree Ford and GM are worth another look. They have made great strides in improving quality. However, when I watch Top Gear on BBC America, I am often embarrassed at the poor quality of American cars they test, specifically, the Corvette’s loose cheesy plastic rear bumper, and the fit and finish of the interior of the Ford F150. Yes, these are cosmetic issues, but I think Jeremy Clarkson has good points when he complains about such cheap slipshod construction.
They have for several years…can they for the next 10 to 20 and show the same consistent reliability over that time ? American car making history is dotted with some very good cars that were produced, made an impression than failed to keep up on redesign and fell behind again. The original Ford Taurus,Ford Focus, the original K cars, the first Chrysler minivans etc. GM/Ford/Chrysler are famous for “one hit wonders”. Ford and GM are doing that quite admirably today. A few models, but resale value tells it all and when they start demanding higher prices when used then the competition in 5 year old models…
BTW, Our family presently owns a Fusion. It was bought because it was inexpensive and and performed as well as others, not because it was a Ford…that’s the point you may have missed.
Resale value does not tell all. I suspect that many people have heard that Toyotas and Hondas are extremely reliable; much more so than Fords or GM or Chrysler. They bid the price of used examples to unnecessarily high levels. Unnecessary? Sure. If someone buys a Toyota, they pay thousands more yet they don’t get it back unless they sell it to someone else who overpays. A Malibu LT is comparable to a Camry SE; a 2008 Camry sells for $1000 more at a dealership. Yet the Malibu estimated 5 year M&R costs are a few hundred less than the Camry. People guess that the Camry might be more reliable, maybe. And it is, slightly, but maintenance costs eat up the difference and then some. Resale value has everything to do with perception and to a lesser extend reality.
Oh, and while we’re on the full disclosure thing, I own a 2005 Honda Accord EX V6 as a daily driver. It’s a fantastic car; rock solid. It was even $3000 cheaper to buy new than a comparably equipped Buick Lacrosse. But today, the 2005 Lacrosse CXS would be a better buy than my car. It’s street price is $2500 less and anticipate M&R over 5 years is about $900 more. Is the Honda really that much less expensive to own, or is it just perceived to be?
Don’t forget that some of those are probably the work of some dock workers converting the vehicles to the UK standards, or they’re really sabotaging them. 
When I told the guys at work where my car was being built(Japan), they all started saying I should have bought American, I told them I didn’t want a Camry or an Accord.
After seeing it, one guy said I should have bought a Dodge Caliber since it looks like one, or that for the money I spent on it, I coulda got a nice Chevy truck. As far as I’m concerned, Dodge doesn’t really make anything I’d consider looking at, save for the 300 SRT-8 or the Ram diesel, and both are a good $10~$20k more than what I spent on my CX-7, and still don’t have some of the options available that came standard on my Mazda.
Back on topic though; in all the test drives I done, the Fusion and Malibu would make for a good beginner vehicle
I’d be willing to bet they want to make sure the back seat is too small for your friends to want rides. I know when I have teenaged kids with new licenses, I won’t want them carrying passengers their own age - far too much temptation to show off and do dumb stuff.
“Resale value has everything to do with perception and to a lesser extend reality.”
I guess I’m missing your point now; your Honda was cheaper new than a LaCrosse. but more expensive now as a used car…That’s exactly my point.
There is no “if, and’s or but’s” about the history of reliability of a Camry over a Malibu and why it also holds it’s value. Many people “hear that Hondas and Toyotas are more reliable” because they ARE more reliable. Any GM, Ford or Chrysler dealership will tell you that themselves…they just now claim they are competing, like they do every 5-10 years when a new model comes out. Maybe it’s different for models like the Fusion when they start importing enough parts or buying first generation hybrid tech. from Toyota to use in their “new” hybrids.
I guess I’m getting a little senile; you seem to be backing my assertion. Thanks ? 
Except for a few esoteric and low name recognition models (Vettes and Prisms) high resale value tends to follow reliability. Ask anyone trying to get a dime from their 5 year old Chrysler products.
BTW, I’d still pay the extra $$$$ for your 05 Honda than an 05 LaCrosse. Why ? Because it has more useful life left according to ANY reputable long term survey of automotive reliability. Thanks again ?
The higher cost of ownership of Toyotas has nothing to do with reliability; it’s the cost of parts and service and the higher rates of initial Toyota owners following into the dealer service trap. That’s why we don’t use their trucks for plowing. Better reliability, but “oh” the cost of parts when they do break down.
Sorry, I guess a part of me is still living in an era I never even got to take part in. I’m in my mid 20’s and prefer to build old, steel hot rods and pickup trucks and wrench on smallblock Chevys, you know, stuff that was designed, forged, stamped, assembled, and sold, all in the good old USA? If I were in the market for a new car, I would probably look at the “big 3” because they are the “big 3,” although I think Chrysler generally has too much price and not enough car these days, and have a pretty bad recent history. GM and Ford have shown tremendous improvements, though.