~$15k Sport Sedan Comparo

[TopHat]

I like that LS.... first car maybe? Seeing that a 5 year old LS is 12k, in another 5 it'll be about 7 or 8 thousand?

I voted CL Type S, Reliable, Fast, Looks sharp

 

[1X83Z]

Wow. There’s one student here who has a Porsche Cayenne (no joke – I pass by it every day), but most students here have Corollas, Civics, Mazda 3s, Korean cars, or beaters. If I see a car that’s something other than those, it probably belongs to a professor.

Yeah, this school is ... ugh. That's another thing about buying this car - everyone in Atlanta is badge-conscious. I'd probably buy the Hyundai straight away if I didn't have to worry about badges, since it's so recent, meaning it'll still be relevant in another five years and its warranty will run out even after I sell it, but... it's a Hyundai.

Taking reliability out of the equation, the Mazda 6 – just because it can slice traffic like a scalpel (well, so can the Lexus, but it’s two years behind). Taking reliability into consideration, I think I’d still have to side with the Acuras.

Do you really think the Mazda is unreliable, or is it just that the Acuras are so reliable that they deserve the nod?

If I were to choose for myself, I don't think I'd choose anything in there, especially since they're all automatic/semi-automatic. Ever thought about learning stick, Doug?

Yes, but not for this car. My biggest problem with buying a manual car is expense. For instance, did you know that a 2002 Impreza WRX with a manual is, on average, $900 more expensive than a 2002 Impreza WRX automatic? If I made manual cars available, only one or two more cars would drop in anyway, and I'm not too hot on any of them.

But, and this mostly concerns the Acuras and the Lexus, since they're the upscale brand of their respective manufacturers... Maintenance costs are going to be higher than the others in your list, because of that. Plus, Lexus and Acura both have a somewhat limited dealer network (at least up here, anyway) and I don't think your local Honda or Toyota dealer will want to work on them.

Indeed; that's a fair point. There are several Acura and Lexus dealers nearby though, so that shouldn't be an issue.

I can't believe you're talking about sport sedans and forgetting about the car everyone thinks about usually... Why no 3 Series?

I've definitely considered that, and the Audi A4, but have eliminated both on the grounds of cost, reliability, and acceleration. The average price on a 2000 323i is $14,238, and when they upgraded it to 325i for 2001 the price bumped to $16,669 - out of my league, especially considering they run high sevens to sixty and would be one to three years older than quicker, better-equipped vehicles (which admittedly don't handle as well, but that's not huge on my mind at this point, though it is a factor).

 

[1X83Z]

I think my head may explode here... I am in a true conundrum. The IS300 and the CL-S are neck and neck for me.

I've read you argument and concur with most of your points - can I ask why you're not considering the TL-S? Just because it's a sedan, or do you have some other reason? The reason I ask is that I'd prefer a sedan, but if you can think of some reason not to go for the TL, then I might take that into account.

Okay, and as a second edit, I would like to add that I wouldn't touch either the Solara or the Galant with a ten foot pole, and that the dashboard of the Sonata looks hideous.

Can I ask how come you don't like the Galant? I completely agree on the Sonata's dash; I wasn't considering the thing in the slightest until I realized I could get a year-old one for the same as a five-year-old IS300.

If you want anything even remotely approaching "sport", you will stay away from anything remotely close to being named "Solara".

Done. The response to this point has been overwhelming. I'll quit looking Solara; it's too expensive anyway. If I could get an SLE convertible for $15k I might be tempted, but otherwise, it's done - I promise!

Kinda quirky and different. Still has power, and some economy, and looks great

Thanks for the suggestion, and I considered its stablemate, the 9-3, but I refuse categorically to look at the Saab 9-5. Its flaws are immense: it's unreliable, it's slow as hell, it doesn't have manu-matic, its interior is crap, it's dated, and it handles like a '70s pickup. Its sole plus is that because of all these flaws, its price has plummeted to the point where you can now get a first-year model for around $7000, which is just comical, considering it's the same design as the present models. No dice on that guy, and I'm not a Saab fan in general. I also swore off Swedish cars after my last experience with Volvo.

I'd rather go with a new compact car in $17,000-$19,000 range.

I never understood this. Why get a slow, four-cylinder when I could have leather, sunroof, heated power seats, 6-CD, possibly even navigation for the same price, and on a vehicle that's only a few years old? Plus I can do 0-60 in 6.8 seconds! To me getting a new Corolla here would make absolutely no sense - it's not fun, it's not quick, it has no equipment... ugh!

Good question for a thread but I think the possible answers are limited a bit too much. It would be nice to see some of the less expensive sporty sedans on that list (like the Nissan Maxima or even a slightly used "G6" option).
BMW should have a place on there as well, and probably VW with their GLI Jetta (a slightly used GLI should fit into this price range).

I considered the Maxima, but I want manu-matic, and it's not happening on a Maxima. In fact, it was a 4-speed automatic until the most recent one. The G6 is just slow. And as for the Jetta, I have serious doubts about its long-term reliability.

 

[a6m5]

I never understood this. Why get a slow, four-cylinder when I could have leather, sunroof, heated power seats, 6-CD, possibly even navigation for the same price, and on a vehicle that's only a few years old? Plus I can do 0-60 in 6.8 seconds! To me getting a new Corolla here would make absolutely no sense - it's not fun, it's not quick, it has no equipment... ugh!

It's all about the $$$$$$. Compacts cost less to fill up the tank, to insure, to maintain, to repair, and to buy.

Granted, you won't likely find leather, heated seats, navigation, but if you are buying a new compact, you can afford the sunroof and a good stereo, factory, or aftermarket.

Personally to me, the problem is that "few years old" part. If you are mechanic, this does not apply, but car repairs cost money. Not so much on the parts, but on the labor. With cars that are only few years old, you probably won't experience major mechanical trouble, but there are many parts on the vehicle that break or wear out in the first few years. On your well equipped used midsize sedan, you might experience repairs, rattles that annoys you and don't quite know where they are coming from , equipment that doesn't quite work right, etc., etc.

I'm not saying don't buy used cars. That's just my argument towards buying used cars. Sometimes you win, sometime you lose buying used.

 

[1X83Z]

You know what, Doug? Unless you're missing your left leg from the knee down, it's time to man up and learn how to drive a manual transmission. Particularly if you're venturing out of Buick Regal territory and into sports sedan territory.

And tiptronic or no, the WRX with an automatic is utterly horrid and to be avoided at all costs.

But it does 0-60 in 6.2!!

If you can come up with a decent manual suggestion, I'd consider it. To my knowledge the only good cars I'm missing on this list because they're not a manu-matic are the 2002-2003 Nissan Maxima SE and the 2002-2003 Subaru Impreza WRX, neither of which - even with a manual - are enough to sway me from my favorite cars on the list.

Doug, if you're considering owning it for that long, I'd get the 2002 TL-S. The CL-S actually got glowing praise from Grassroots Motorsports as a daily driver, but I would think that by the time you were ready to part with it, you'd need the 4-door version. If you think you could live with 2 doors that long, then get the CL. However, I've never understood the prejudice against 4-door cars, so I'd recommend the TL because it is inherently more practical, but not much less sporty in S form. I'm in complete agreement with Sage on the styling - slightly anonymous, but well-tailored, and very clean. The interior is quite nice, as well.

Everything I wanted to hear... 👍

I drove an IS300 in the early days of my car shopping (manual, though - getting the hint, yet?).

Ahh - stupid Lexus - the only manual I'd seriously, seriously consider is an IS300 manual, but Lexus waited a year to release that, meaning no 2001s exist with them. A 2001 IS300 is already on the upper edge of my price range, so a 2002 is essentially out of the question (they run about $19,000 at this point, and I'd like to keep it under $16,000 if possible). One other issue I have with the IS300 manual is that it was a 5-speed, which is the same as the automatic, meaning it had little if any performance benefit.

The IS300 will also come nowhere near feeling quick enough for you, particularly with an automatic. However, if you get this one, I could understand what was driving the decision.

The wagon has depreciated notably more than the sedan, and if I could find one in my price range - a virtual impossibility, not because they're too expensive but because they're too rare - I'd be very tempted. Those wheels suck though.

What about a TSX?

I saw one on campus yesterday. I love the styling, I love the interior, but they're just way too slow. I don't think I could justify getting a TSX when I could have a TL-S for cheaper.

And I swear - I'm leaving off the 3-series and, my personal favorite in this segment, the Audi A4 - because they're just too damn expensive.

To me, the Sonata is just common sense. Hyundai makes good cars now, the new Sonata looks good, is fast, handles decently, and is plenty fancy inside for me. Unlike the other cars in the poll, it's brand new, so there's no worries of previous harsh treatment. Oh, and Hyundai has that funny 10 year waranty going on. Too bad it doesn't have a stick...

Thanks for this post; I was beginning to doubt whether we had anyone sensible in this forum. No, it doesn't have a manual, but it does have a 5-speed automatic with Tiptronic, so it's not a total lost. I'd say the Sonata is the most competent vehicle up there, factoring in long-term reliability. But it's probably the least-fun.

How about the Lincoln LS V8 Sport? I think it meets all the criteria...

It suits the criteria so well that I considered asking a moderator to revise the poll last night when I realised I had left it off, but I decided against it. Yeah, it's definitely a great car - 2002 models run $16,544, which is right smack dab in the middle of my price range. I need to drive one.

Holy cow! Toronado's right. I'm not even looking for a midsize sedan, and I might even want one.

I like that LS.... first car maybe? Seeing that a 5 year old LS is 12k, in another 5 it'll be about 7 or 8 thousand?

I voted CL Type S, Reliable, Fast, Looks sharp

Do note that many of the cars in Toronado's search are six-cylinder models, which are slow (low nines to 60), under-equipped, and don't offer Tiptronic. A 2003 V8 will run about $19k-$20k. I can only afford 2000-2002 models, and of those I'd only want a 2002.

It's all about the $$$$$$. Compacts cost less to fill up the tank, to insure, to maintain, to repair, and to buy.

Perhaps. I should've mentioned, though, that I won't be paying for gas, insurance, or maintenance/repairs. I understand your point, but I don't think I'll ever own a new car - let someone else take the depreciation hit while I sit back and buy their car after three years when it's worth a small fraction of what they paid for it.

By the way, I've voted for the one I'm considering most.

 

[Duke]

Do you really think the Mazda is unreliable, or is it just that the Acuras are so reliable that they deserve the nod?

After what you've said about the Mazda6, you'd even remotely consider one? I didn't let you get away with ignoring your previous words on the 3 series, and I'm not going to let you get away with it on the 6, either.

My biggest problem with buying a manual car is expense. For instance, did you know that a 2002 Impreza WRX with a manual is, on average, $900 more expensive than a 2002 Impreza WRX automatic?

That's because the WRX with an automatic is simply horrid, and you're mostly picking that example because it suits your rationalization for not buying one. In general, manual transmissions are cheaper in a used car, because most people do not want one. I know for sure that I saved in excess of $1000 by buying my 325 in a manual (once I found it) by comparing prices to the dozens of automatics around with otherwise-similar equipment.

I'll also remind you of a few other choice words you've posted:

yeah - you probably think that was a pretty good idea now, but come resale time you'll be absolutely kicking yourself when you see the manuals going for $800 less than the automatics.

Hrm...

The average price on a 2000 323i is $14,238, and when they upgraded it to 325i for 2001 the price bumped to $16,669 - out of my league, especially considering they run high sevens to sixty...

That's quite a bit different from what you told me about my car earlier:

In my opinion those 325s are absolute dogs... slow as hell... because [0-60 is] in the low nines.

So which is it - low 7s (published), high 7s (when Doug is considering one) or low 9s (when Duke has bought one)?

Don't ignore my previous post, either, Doug, or I'll lose all respect for you.
[edit] Good, at least you didn't blow off my first post. 👍

Your point is well taken on the 2002 TL-S vs. 2004 TSX debate. But really, just for grins, drive a TSX (even with the autobox) and tell me if you really think it's too slow. Heck, when we drive it the Vtach hardly ever even kicks in yo, but it still has adequate power for most driving. It jetted us down to Baltimore and back yesterday, lots of cut-and-thrust work, and cruising comfortably at 85-90mph in between.

With the 6-speed manual it's just sweet, like riding a high-quality road bicycle on smooth pavement.

 

[Tornado]

Do note that many of the cars in Toronado's search are six-cylinder models, which are slow (low nines to 60), under-equipped, and don't offer Tiptronic. A 2003 V8 will run about $19k-$20k. I can only afford 2000-2002 models, and of those I'd only want a 2002.

I do believe that these suit the prerequisites.
1 (2005 FTW!)
2 (2003 V8 auto under $15,000)

 

[a6m5]

By the way, I've voted for the one I'm considering most.

Ah, the Teal(TL). Good choice. I think that one was based on the Accord I used to have('98). It should handle really nice. My Accord was a pleasure to drive, especially after I replaced the factory springs with the H&Rs. Comfortable, yet very responsive. V-6 on that car should be really nice.

 

[1X83Z]

After what you've said about the Mazda6, you'd even remotely consider one? I didn't let you get away with ignoring your previous words on the 3 series, and I'm not going to let you get away with it on the 6, either.

I have a lot of problems with the 6 as a new buy, but as a used buy and in this company I think it's a good vehicle to consider. It's still got a subpar interior and it's the slowest car here, but it has other things going for it that make it worth considering.

That's because the WRX with an automatic is simply horrid, and you're mostly picking that example because it suits your rationalization for not buying one.

That's definitely accurate, although with the Maxima, the average prices are within $200 of each other ($14,373 for the automatic vs. $14,181 with the manual). At this point, I just don't see a manual transmission swaying me, but again, I'm open to suggestions on the matter, if you can come up with some other stuff that I might be skipping.

So which is it - low 7s (published), high 7s (when Doug is considering one) or low 9s (when Duke has bought one)?

I thought you're the one who told me it was high sevens! Frankly I don't think it can beat 8.0sec, or 8.5sec in Denver, but I was saying high sevens to be nice. It's obviously not low sevens, especially because the E46 that's mostly in my price range is the '00 323i, which used a 170-horsepower 2.5-liter six. And, I'll admit it, I'd prefer a top-level, loaded Acura than a base-level, stripper 3-series, particularly because the 3-series is probably the most popular car on this campus.

Your point is well taken on the 2002 TL-S vs. 2004 TSX debate. But really, just for grins, drive a TSX (even with the autobox) and tell me if you really think it's too slow. Heck, when we drive it the Vtach hardly ever even kicks in yo, but it still has adequate power for most driving. It jetted us down to Baltimore and back yesterday, lots of cut-and-thrust work, and cruising comfortably at 85-90mph in between.

I understand, and if I get the opportunity, I will drive a TSX, but do remember my last car did 0-60 in 7.1 seconds, and one of my (unstated) criteria is that this car should be quicker than my last one. With the automatic, Acura claims around 8 seconds, and that coupled with my hatred of 4-cylinder engines means I'm going to have some issues here. I know the handling's crisp, but I don't know if that will be enough to get me over the acceleration deficit.

I do believe that these suit the prerequisites.
1 (2005 FTW!)
2 (2003 V8 auto under $15,000)

Definitely, though the mileage on the '03 is quite a bit north of what I'd like. Those are exceptions, though, rather than the rule; these are average Lincoln LS 3.9 prices:

2002: $16,544
2003: $19,948
2004: $22,802
2005: $26,060

Ah, the Teal(TL). Good choice. I think that one was based on the Accord I used to have('98). It should handle really nice. My Accord was a pleasure to drive, especially after I replaced the factory springs with the H&Rs. Comfortable, yet very responsive. V-6 on that car should be really nice.

Particularly Acura's V6 which was a bit larger than Honda's, and the Type-S's V6, which was more powerful than the standard Acura unit. I've heard nothing but good things about the vehicle, though some have had transmission issues (enough that Honda extended the transmission warranty to 7yr/100k mi).

 

[daan]

So, what happened to...

Well - after literally making my mind up on the 400E and making final plans for purchase, my mother has given me the option of purchasing her 2003 Mazda Tribute - an effortlessly competent small SUV that I've always hated due to its averageness - for a mere $3000. The vehicle is worth about $15,000. So I'm going to take it, in all likelihood. If the Tribute falls through I'll get the Mercedes, but my parents really want me in a safe, reliable car, and they're willing to pay for most of the Mazda's expenses versus none for the Mercedes. So I'm happy - it's a good car and it'll be nice to have in a college where everyone has new SUVs... I'll fit right in.

 

[1X83Z]

So, what happened to...

I believe I've aptly convinced my parents that spending $30,000 for a new car for my father would be more expensive than spending ~$12,000 for a used car for me. It took some concessions, but I think I've done it.

 

[Tornado]

Definitely, though the mileage on the '03 is quite a bit north of what I'd like. Those are exceptions, though, rather than the rule; these are average Lincoln LS 3.9 prices:

2002: $16,544
2003: $19,948
2004: $22,802
2005: $26,060

After remembering you no longer lived in Denver, I came up with these, all within 30 miles of Atlanta:
1 (2004 LS V8 auto with only 26k miles and 16 miles from Atlanta)
2 (2003 LS V8 auto with only 20k miles and 23 miles from Atlanta)
3 (2003 LS V8 auto with 54k miles and 16 miles from Atlanta).

 

[TopHat]

Stop making me want one!

I cant stop thinking about a car of my own.

 

[skip0110]

But it does 0-60 in 6.2!!

If you can come up with a decent manual suggestion, I'd consider it. To my knowledge the only good cars I'm missing on this list because they're not a manu-matic are the 2002-2003 Nissan Maxima SE and the 2002-2003 Subaru Impreza WRX, neither of which - even with a manual - are enough to sway me from my favorite cars on the list.

Have you thought about Subaru Legacy 2.5GT? 0-60 in 5.3 is a pretty convincing argument. 2005's should be inside your budget, barely.

By the way, I've voted for the one I'm considering most.

I like how you are thinking. 👍

Definitely, though the mileage on the '03 is quite a bit north of what I'd like. Those are exceptions, though, rather than the rule; these are average Lincoln LS 3.9 prices:

2002: $16,544
2003: $19,948
2004: $22,802
2005: $26,060

Make sure you get the Lincoln LS V8 Sport, the regular one will ride like a Lincoln. Also I think the V8 has been offered in several horsepower ratings over the years, do your research.

Also, I'm glad you are ignoring the A4 because they are very unreliable.

 

[Tornado]

Make sure you get the Lincoln LS V8 Sport, the regular one will ride like a Lincoln. Also I think the V8 has been offered in several horsepower ratings over the years, do your research.

252 BHP from 1999-2002. 280 BHP from 2002-2005.

Stop making me want one!

I cant stop thinking about a car of my own.

Ah, not having a car sucks doesn't it? Wait 3 more years.

 

[Sage]

Do you really think the Mazda is unreliable, or is it just that the Acuras are so reliable that they deserve the nod?

Um, a little bit of both. I wouldn’t say the Mazda’s unreliable, period, but let’s face it, Mazda doesn’t have the greatest reliability record. I don’t think you’ll have many, if any mechanical problems, but I can tell you that my Mazda 3’s glovebox rattles and a crack has developed in the windshield fluid hose (I really need to get that fixed, but there aren’t any Mazda dealers close to here ). Nothing major, but I suspect the Mazda is more likely to develop rattles and what not than the Acura.

I dunno, I probably worded my previous post badly – I shouldn’t have cut it down between reliability only. It’s really difficult to compare an Acura TL versus a Mazda 6, because they’re quite different. Maybe a test drive is in order?

Oh, by the way, regarding the TL vs. CL – I almost always like coupes more, but I think the TL is much better-proportioned than the CL (the CL’s side profile is slightly bizarre), and as pointed out, a sedan will serve you better in the long run. I really think you can’t lose with the Acura. One of the other cars on the list might be a slightly better choice, but you’ll probably be plenty satisfied with the Acura.

And, one remark regarding new vs. used: it’s been my experience (dunno about others&#8217 that cars seem to rapidly deteriorate after they turn 10 or 11 years old. Our Subaru BRAT was useless by the time it was 12, our Honda Accord went way downhill very quickly after it turned 10, and our Ranger started having mechanical issues once it turned 11. If my experience mirrors what happens to most other people, then be weary about the cars in your list that are straddling that line.

 

[Danoff]

This isn't an easy choice when the mileage isn't listed for the vehicles. I like the TL best of the ones available, but the IS made me look twice. The IS is just a little on the old side.

 

[1X83Z]

After remembering you no longer lived in Denver, I came up with these, all within 30 miles of Atlanta:
1 (2004 LS V8 auto with only 26k miles and 16 miles from Atlanta)
2 (2003 LS V8 auto with only 20k miles and 23 miles from Atlanta)
3 (2003 LS V8 auto with 54k miles and 16 miles from Atlanta).

It doesn't matter really where the car is - given the right price, I could be tempted to buy in either place. I would prefer to buy the vehicle in Colorado, but my parents would probably rather me buy it locally here in Atlanta.

Have you thought about Subaru Legacy 2.5GT? 0-60 in 5.3 is a pretty convincing argument. 2005's should be inside your budget, barely.

You can check, but I think they're quite a bit too expensive.

Make sure you get the Lincoln LS V8 Sport, the regular one will ride like a Lincoln. Also I think the V8 has been offered in several horsepower ratings over the years, do your research.

Indeed you're right; from 2000 to 2002 it had 252 horsepower, and from 2003 on it had 280. All is not lost though, as 2002 models did 0-60 in 7.3 seconds, but later ones were much quicker (especially for the vehicle's size), as they ran 6.8 seconds to 60. So it'd be an advantage to find an '03+, but an '00-'02 would definitely be tolerable.

Um, a little bit of both. I wouldn’t say the Mazda’s unreliable, period, but let’s face it, Mazda doesn’t have the greatest reliability record. I don’t think you’ll have many, if any mechanical problems, but I can tell you that my Mazda 3’s glovebox rattles and a crack has developed in the windshield fluid hose (I really need to get that fixed, but there aren’t any Mazda dealers close to here ). Nothing major, but I suspect the Mazda is more likely to develop rattles and what not than the Acura.

Honestly, my parents would be more likely to allow me to get the Mazda than any other vehicle here. Our 2003 Tribute has had absolutely spotless reliability over the two and a half years we've owned it, and the 6,400 miles I put on it over four weeks this year didn't affect it at all. So I'd be tempted to get the 6s on the basis of Mazda reliability. The engine it uses is also a very well-regarded one, as you're probably aware.

Oh, by the way, regarding the TL vs. CL – I almost always like coupes more, but I think the TL is much better-proportioned than the CL (the CL’s side profile is slightly bizarre), and as pointed out, a sedan will serve you better in the long run. I really think you can’t lose with the Acura. One of the other cars on the list might be a slightly better choice, but you’ll probably be plenty satisfied with the Acura.

I agree wholly on the TL vs. CL debate - the TL isn't exactly gorgeous, but the CL really does have a strange look from the middle back. It's also marginally more expensive, and it lost the "good" wheels (those five-spokes in the picture) for 2003. One CL plus is that the Type-S was offered from inception in '01, not true for the TL, which gained the Type-S model in 2002.

Did you, Sage, drive a Mazda 6 when you were searching for a new car recently?

This isn't an easy choice when the mileage isn't listed for the vehicles. I like the TL best of the ones available, but the IS made me look twice. The IS is just a little on the old side.

Fair. Mileage will be about 11,000 per year for each car. I would not purchase a car with more than 15,000 miles per year (not because I think it's crap but just because I don't have to, since there are plenty of all of these cars in existence - except the Galant, I guess).

 

[Slicks]

I've read you argument and concur with most of your points - can I ask why you're not considering the TL-S? Just because it's a sedan, or do you have some other reason? The reason I ask is that I'd prefer a sedan, but if you can think of some reason not to go for the TL, then I might take that into account.

Can I ask how come you don't like the Galant? I completely agree on the Sonata's dash; I wasn't considering the thing in the slightest until I realized I could get a year-old one for the same as a five-year-old IS300.

Well, I have no concrete reason to shy away from the TL. I prefer the styling of the rear of the CL, and I don't need a sedan (I am 18, and will add that my drivers liscense also currently restricts the number of passengers I can take).
I would avoid the Galant because of it's styling, and it's interior: Both poor. I'm sure the drivetrain and everything you don't see on a daily basis is fine, but the stuff I do see isn't.

 

[skip0110]

You can check, but I think they're quite a bit too expensive.

Like I said, just barely within budget....

 

[Takumi Fujiwara]

Like I said, just barely within budget....

You beat me to it, that was going to be exactly my suggestion. The Legacy is a great car, it handles essentially as well as the Impreza, but manages to be much more suited to its Auto then the Impreza, and is also a stunningly attractive car, especially with a minor drop (~1") and some nice wheels.

The other thing to look at, bizarrely enough, would be a Forester. Although it's classified as an SUV, it's really just a lifted Impreza with a taller roofline and a better engine/transmission combo in an automatic application. It's frankly shocking how well they drive, too.

 

[Sage]

Did you, Sage, drive a Mazda 6 when you were searching for a new car recently?

No – couldn’t find any manuals around here, so I never even bothered.

 

[1X83Z]

Well, I have no concrete reason to shy away from the TL. I prefer the styling of the rear of the CL, and I don't need a sedan (I am 18, and will add that my drivers liscense also currently restricts the number of passengers I can take).

Makes sense. Thanks. 👍

Like I said, just barely within budget....

The average price of a 2005 model is $22,395 on AutoTrader - way out of budget. In fact, there are only four automatics under $19,000 on AT, and one is a wagon. It's possible to find a 2005, but difficult, and impossible in Denver (though admittedly the wagon is in Colorado, but not the Denver area). It's a good rec, but I really don't think it's possible.

 

[JCE]

Mazda6 because; it looks fantastic, I'm comfortable driving it on long distances, its not slow, interior isn't bad, and because it is just dead sexy.

My second choice (and almost my first) was the Hyundai. GREAT car, I just like the way the Mazda6 looks a bit better.

But I digress, I'd still prefer a Nissan product or the Lincoln LS V8. I'd grab any VQ35 Nissan saloon car over just about anything--torquesteer and all.

 

[Takumi Fujiwara]

Makes sense. Thanks. 👍



The average price of a 2005 model is $22,395 on AutoTrader - way out of budget. In fact, there are only four automatics under $19,000 on AT, and one is a wagon. It's possible to find a 2005, but difficult, and impossible in Denver (though admittedly the wagon is in Colorado, but not the Denver area). It's a good rec, but I really don't think it's possible.

Well, why not look at an '04 or '03, then?

Heck, I'd look at an '04 over here in California, and, if necessary, fly out to pick it up. I'm just thinking that even a few-year-old model of an AWD car in Colorado will have seen a lot of snow.

 

[skip0110]

Well, why not look at an '04 or '03, then?

Heck, I'd look at an '04 over here in California, and, if necessary, fly out to pick it up. I'm just thinking that even a few-year-old model of an AWD car in Colorado will have seen a lot of snow.

I'm a Subaru fan as well, but the earlier generation just wasn't the hot rod the new one is. Even the H6 didn't really add much haste.

 

[1X83Z]

Well, why not look at an '04 or '03, then?

Heck, I'd look at an '04 over here in California, and, if necessary, fly out to pick it up. I'm just thinking that even a few-year-old model of an AWD car in Colorado will have seen a lot of snow.

Waaaaay too slow. Subaru said the 4-cylinder automatic Outback did 0-60 in 10.5 seconds, which means a manual sedan won't break 9.5. It's a good car, but I'm a car person, and it's not for me. Even the 3-liter flat-six isn't quick enough, though I do like those.

 

[neanderthal]

for <$20000 id be looking at a car that handles great and eschews all the badge snobbery youue bouond to run into

a two or three year old MINI cooper S. but only as a stick. why bother with an auto.

it may be wrong wheel drive but it handles fantastic, and it circumvents all the image conscious lemmings and sheep and the great unwashed.

and unlike the miata, it doesnt suffer the stigma of being a "chic" or hairdressers car. even though the miata is an amazing sports car regardless of image.

 

[Tornado]

But it is also very small. And only comes with a stick. Also, he wants sports sedans. If he wanted other cars I would have suggested the Z32 300ZX.

 

[YSSMAN]

My two cents on what has been suggested thus far:

1) My love for GM would certainly push me towards the Grand Prix Comp G for the 3.8L Supercharged V6 and the "TapShift" automatic, but for the most part, I'm not sold on outgoing W-Bodies unless they are post-2005 restyle. The interior quality went up substantially, as did standard equipment and fuel economy. You can find high-spec models on the cheap these days, given the rebates and their rather poor depreciation ratings. It won't be long until you could get a Bonneville GXP (4.0L Northstar V8) or Grand Prix GXP (5.3L V8) on the cheap... Otherwise I'd look for a newer Grand Prix GT, which is essentially the same car as the old Comp G, at a lower price.

2) I really like the Mazda 6, don't get me wrong, but not for the length of time you are looking at here. We were looking at buying a 6i not too long ago, and although the sportyness of the car was certainly a plus, I wasn't particularly impressed with the quality, and the ride would eventually get tiresome if you are looking for some levels of comfort. True, agility counts in it's class, and the 6s has it in spades. But overall, you searching for one sans manual transmission raises red flags for me. If you are looking for a sport sedan with an automatic, the 6s is the wrong place to shop.

3) The Hyundai is an interesting model to consider as well. They are cheap, considered to be quite reliable, and the warranty should last long into the time where you would own the car. The higher spec model would come with more or similar standard equipment as compared to the older luxury models, and that is a very good thing. But fuel consumption would be my biggest issue with the car, as it is a bit on the thirsty side overall, but not too bad either. The refinement levels are way up, the prices are way down, but the overall "sterile" ride quality might cut it out of the competition.

(You may want to check out the "sporty" Kia Optima. It is essentially the same car [think Impala vs Grand Prix], but with more sport baked-in)

---

Outside of what you have there, I'll give you a few ideas:

The Volkswagen Passat (B5):

There are a wide range of engines and transmissions to choose from here, certainly one that can match your budget and offer the kind of performance you are looking for. Obviously on the high-end of things there is the Passat W8 (my personal favorite), dealer retail knocking on the $20K door for a 2003 model (last year was 2004). You are getting German-grade quality here, which can be hit or miss in some cases. The best part of the deal is of course the 270 BHP W8, and with the optional 5-speed Triptronic, you are good for about 20/27 MPG. And with the added 4MOTION AWD, you are going to get plenty of traction in the snow.

...Now if you want to save about $3000, I'd highly suggest the late-model B5 GLX VR6 4MOTION. It too can be had with the 5-speed Triptronic, but with the lower output VR6 (190 BHP), acceleration times are obviously going to decrease, but fuel mileage is about the same (give or take a point).

If even more value is wanted, for a little more than $14K you could find yourself a 2003 Passat 1.8T GLS. Sure, she is FWD and again is down in power (now 170 BHP), but makes up for it with decent fuel economy, and the classic German driving experience. You could stretch the budget here and go for as new as a 2005 Passat 1.8T GLS for about $19K, which would get you slightly improved build quality, and I believe a few extra boxes checked with standard equipment (not much there though).

...Of course you will pay out the ass for insurance (you will with ANY German car), and repair costs can be outrageous on some occasions. That of course is part of the risk with a Volkswagen, and it is for the most part a "take it or leave it" type of relationship. But when you are getting essentially an Audi A4 for a bit less money, the tied-down driving experience that only comes from a German automaker, and the fact that you are part of a pretty exclusive group of enthusiasts, it makes an interesting option...

That is of course if you are open to it?